ED 253 999

TITLE

INSTITUTION

SPANS AGENCY

PUB DATENOTE

. PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

-IDENTIFIERS

ABSTIRAZ

DOCUMENT RESUME

U EC' 171 708

LRE: DeveloSn, Criteria for the Evaluation of theLeast Restrictive Environment Provision. Exploring

sues in the Implementation of P.L. 94-142.1NC Resources, Inc:, Columbus, Ohio.; Research for

Bette; Schools, Inc., Philadelphia, Pa.E-`eau of Education for the Handicapped (DREW /OE),Washington, D.C.May 79236p.Viewpoints (120) -- Collected Works - General (020)

MFOI/PC10 Plus Postage.*Compliance (Legal); trasabilities; ElementarySecondary Education; Federal Legislation;*Mainstreaming; Models; Program implementationp*Student Placement*Education for All Handicapped Children Act

Four commissioned papers on approaches to implementthe least restrictive environment (LRE) provision of P.L. 94-142, theEducation for All Handicapped Childmn Act, ate presented. Theauthors were asked to develop criteria applicable to the local leveland appropriate to .a variety of contexts. Papers are presented fromthe following authors: Sheila L^wenbraun and James Affleck ("LeastRestrictive Environment"); Gregory Aloia ("Assessment of theComplexity of the Least Restrictive Environment Provision of PublicLaw 142"); Jay Gottlieb (" Placement in the Least RestrictiveEnvironment"); and Thomas Gilhool and Edward Stutman ("Integration ofSeverely handicapped Students"). Responses to'the papers of a panelof educators are presented in terms of such topics as letter vs.spirit of the law, the goal of LRE provision, and the implementingregulations. Recommendations regarding the development of guides ormodals offering self-study strategies to local education agencies areoffered. A three-page reference list is included. (CL)

***********************************************************************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the original document.***0*******************************************************************

US. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION/ CENTER !ERIC)

le This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating ItIlinor changes have been made to improverepri.cluction quaiity

Points of view or opinons stated in this docu-roent do not necessarily represent official NIE

position or policy.

May 1979

Published by Research for Better Schools. Inc.

61979 UNC Services, Inc. All rights reserved. For permissions and other rightsunder this copyright, contact Research for Better Schools, Inc., 444 North 3rdStreet, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19123.

U.S. Sopyright is claimed until 1986. Thereafter in the U.S. only, all portions ofthis work covered by this copyright will be in the public domain. Copyright inchar countries remains in effect.

This work was developed under a contract or grant with the Bureau of Educationfor the Handicapped, U.S Office of Education, Department of Health, Educationand Welfare. However, the content does not necessarily reflect the position orpolicy of BEH /USOE/HEW, and no official endorsement of these materials shouldbe inferred.

3

cr

TABLE OF CINTENTS

Foreword

Acknowledgements

Page

Part A Introduction 5Overview of the Study by Linda G. Morra

Part B Approaches to Evaluate Implementation 13of the LRE Provision of P.L. 94.142

Section

1. Least Restrictive EnvironmentSheila Lowenbraun and James O. Affl&k 15

2. Assessment of the Complexity of the LeastRestrictive Environment Doctrine Public Law 94-142 ...... .79

Gregory F. Alois

3. Placement in the Least Restrictive Environment . ...... 151Jay Gottlieb

4. integration of Severely Handiceoped StudentsThomas K. Gilhool and Edward A. Stutman

191

Part C The View From the Panel , 229

FOREWORD

The papers printed here were commissioned by the Bureau of Education for theHandicapped to investigate issues of quality in the implementation of the DueProcess Procedural Safeguards provisions of PI, 94-142 (Section 615 of theEducation of the Handicapped Act). A. panel of educational practitioners wasalso convened to discuss the papers and provide recommendations to the Bureau.Their comments, together with the papers, represent the most recent thinkingand activities of a number of highly qualified professionals. While the viewsexpressed in the papers are tiloce principally of the authors, each writer hasdrawn upon the experiences, writings, research, and observations of variousother educators in additioa to their own. The care with which both the authorsand the panelists shared their thoughts and ideas is obvious throughout thispublication, It is our hope that this document will not only be informative, butthat it will stimulate other thoughts on the evaluation of effectiveness ofimplementation.

Edwin W. MartinDeputy CornrnkpionerBureau of Education for the Handicapped

1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many have helped BEM in conducting the Criteria Study. Special thanks are dueto staff at Buffington & Associates who played an important role in arrangingthe panel meeting and assembling the developed papers into this monograph.Appreciation is extended to Adrienne McCollum for her overal project direction,and to Angela Edwards, Assistant Project Director, for coordination of thecountless details involved in setting up the panels and producing the monograph.Acknowledgement is also made of the efforts of Frances Fuchs in assistance withthe development of study questions for the panel, and P. W. Robinson forsupport services.

6As considerable "in-house" efforts also went into this study, special thanks are

. also in order for State Program Studies Branch staff Mary Kennedy, KathleenFenton, Lou Danielson, Pat Morrissey. and Jim Maxwell for review of draftsof the study papers. Finally, appreciation is extended to the authors of papers.and other panel participants. for their insights and suggestions.

Linda G. MorraProject OfficerBureau of Education for the Handicapped

3

PART A

introduction:Overview of the Study

Linda G. Morro

Bureau ofEducaton for the Handicapped

0

By now the least restrictive, environment provision of Public Law 94-142. theEducation for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, is familiar to mosteducators. Section 612(5148) of the law requires assurances that to the greatestextent appropriate, placement maximizes the education of the handicappedchild with his or her nonhandicapped peers. This section of the law specificallystate's that ". . to the maximum extent appropriate, handicapped childrenare educated with -children who are not handilapped, and that special classes.separate schooling, or other removal of handicapped children tom the regulareducational environinent occurs only when the nature of severity of thehandicap is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementaryaids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily." The history of the leastrestricitive environment (IRE) provision is tied to the courts,-which, in casessuch as PARC and Mills, established the principle that given two or morealternative educational settings, the handicapped child should be placed in theleast drastic or most normal setting appropriate. There should be as littleinterference with the normal educational process as possible.

These judicial mandates left the implementation of the concept to educators.That is, eductors had to determine the definition and application of "appropri-ateness" for each child. While r.Iction 612(5)(8) of P.L. 94.142 provides someadditional specification of the IRE concept, it is not expected that thedefinition and implementation of the concept will be straight-forward: "appro-priateness", "nature or severity of the handicap", and "satisfactoryeducation inregular classes with supplementary assistance" are terms subject to varyinginterpretations.

Thus, while as a concept the meaning of the least restrictive environment is clear,its every day translation into implementation is not. Increasingly, the questionshave been asked: How does one determine which of various alternative deliverysettings is the least restrictive environment appropriate for a given child? After achild has been placed, how does one monitor the continued appropriateness ofthe placement? At a school district level, what would quality implementation ofthe least restrictive environment look like? The regulations to P.L. 94.142provide a framework for implementation of the LRE provision, but leave manyspecifics to local school district discretion.

THE REGULATIONS

Section 121a,851 of the regulations requires local education agencies to havevarious alternative placements available for the education of handicappedchildren. it is Section 121a.552 which presents some of the main factors tobe considered in determining a child's placement. The comment to this section ofthe regulations indicates that the overriding rule in the section is that pl,cenientdecisions must be made on an individual basis. The section itself states that each

handicapped child's educational placement is to be determined at least annually,based on his or her individualized education program (IEK, and as close aspossible to the child's home. Unless a child's IEP requires some otherarrangement, the child also is to be educated in the school he or she would,attend if not handicapped. Finally, in selecting the IRE, consideration is to begiven to any potential harmful effect on the child or on the quality of services heor she needs.

The regulations are concerned not only with the academic integration ofhandicapped children with nonhandicapped children to the maximum extentappropriate, but also integration of handicapped children in nonacademic andextracurricular services and activities. Section 121a.553 states that in providingor arranging for the provision of non-academic and extracurricular activities.each public agency is to insure that each handicapped child participates withnonhandicapped children in those services and activities to the maximum extentappropriate to the needs of that child. These services and activities"wouldinclude, for example, recess, meals, art, music, industrial arts, home economics,special interest clubs sponsored by the schools, counseling services, anti athletics.

THE APPROACH

The basic question remains of: How can the quality of various proceduresundertaken to implement the IPE provision of P.L. 94.142 be determined? Ttlequestion issof relevance to the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped (BEH)and state and local education agencies, but fo: differing reasons. While themonitoring efforts of the BEH are intentionally limited to determiningcompliance, and emphasis on State rather than local compliance, BEH isinterested in the development and dissemination of best-practice implemetation

procedures. State education agencies (SEAS), responsible under P.L. 94-142 formonitoring local implementation of the IRE provision and providing technicalassistance, must also develop state standards for IRE implementation. Thus, thisquestion has importance for SEAs. Finally, local *melon agencies (LEAs) maybe interested in conducting their own internal evaluations of IRE implementa-tion.

It is evident that in order for the above question to be addressed, criteria areneeded which can be used to evaluate implementption. To stimulate thoughtregarding definitions of quality, the BEH undertook a study in October, 1977 toexplore issues of quality in implementation of four provisions of P.L. 94-142.This monograph summarizes activities related to one of those provisions theleast restrictive environment. The study had two major parts. First, four paperswere commissioned to provide profession& judgements of quality implementa-tion of the IRE provision. Second, a panel of education practitioners wasconvened to discuss the papers and make recommendations to BEH concerningtheir value and use.

8

In conceptualizing the study, it was recogniied that evaluation never takes placein a vacuum; standards are always involved. Judgements of the performance'of a

am or procedures are meascred against either explicit or implicit standards.ards are derived from experience..knowledge and/or values. The difficulty

recogr,ized is that standards will-vary according to whose experience, knowledge,and values serve as the basis for the standards. For example, the regulations statethat each chi/dis educational placement should be based on his or her 1E11.Criteria for the evaluation of IRE implementation might vary, however,depending on which component of the IEP one alooses to focus. Based on one'sdefinition of "appropriate", the fOcus might be the child's current levels ofperformance, the special education and related services required by the child, orthe statement of goals and objectives. To illustrate further, if one's definition oft.RE appropriatenestis based on child petformance levels, the standard might bethat the IRE is In appropriate match between child and environmentalcharacteristics,, An evaluation criterion might be that the performance levels ofthe child "match" the performance levels of the other children in the settingselected as the IRE for the child. On the other hand, if one's definition is basedon the special education and related services needed by the child, the standardmight be that the LRE is an appropriate service delivery setting based on acascade type of service delivery model. An evaluation criterion might be that theintensity of the special education and related services required by the child isreflected by the level of the setting on the cascade. Finally, if the last definitionwas posited. the s...ndard might be achievement of a social acceptance goal.Evaluation criteria to determine the appropriateness of the LRE might be somechange score on a measure of social acceptance or a specified change in abehavior index.

Because a variety of standards are possible, authors were selected for this studywhose experience, knowledge, and values would tend to be dispari e. Naturally,the four papers do not represent all the possible standards of quality whichcould be identified. They do represent, however, four different approaches tothe difficult issue of quality in relation to implementation of the IRE provision.

THE LRE POSITION PAPERS

Authors were provided guidelines which first expanded on the subject ofqualitative implementation of tho IRE provision. Progress in implementationwas conceptualized as a continuum; conformance with the letter of the law wasviewed as one end of the continuum (minimal implementation), while a fullmeeting of the interI or spirit of the law would form the other (maximal) end ofthe continuum. Authors were to use this concept of progress in implementationin developing their papers.

Secondly, the guidelines requested that authors develop criteria that would be

2

1,0

applicable at the LEA level. Thus, the developed cri \soda could be used by LEASinterested in ,evaluating their own progress in implementation of the LREprovision, as well at by SEAS in conducting their own evaluations. The guidelinesfurther indicated that criteria which would involve the collection of data eitheralready available or relatively accessible to LEAs at a low cost of both time andmoney would te most useful.

Third, authors were requested to develop criteria for two specific components ofIRE: (1) procedures undertaken by LEAs to )plement the IRE provision, and(2) appropriateness of actual placements made )sy LEAs. Thus, authors at IttEposition papers were to develop quality indicators for IRE as both a process andproduct. That is, criteria developed were to provide indicators of the extend towhich LEA procedures ipliplemented and actual placements made meet both theletter and intent of spirit of the law.

Fonrth, authors were asked to provide a rationale. or justification for theircriteria. It was expected that F.L. 94-142 and its regulations would provide abase for the development of criteria. For those criteria used as indicators ofmaximal implementation, authors were expected to draw from theory, researchfindings, the Congressional Record,' personal experience, or personal knowledgeof current practices. Where criteria did exceed the requirements of the law andregulations, authors were to indicate that the criteria represented desirable butnot mandatory standards.

Fifth, the guideline acknowledged the interrelationship of the IRE provisions ofP.L. 94.142 with other stipulated provisions the Individualized educationprogram provision, due process procedures, and protection in evaluation ornon-discriminatory assessment procedures.' Authors were requested to restrictthemselves as closely as possible, to the IRE provision,

Finally, the guidelines requested that authors of IRE position paper considerdifferent kinds of contextual influences on LEA implementation of theprovision. Variables for consideration included, for example, the urban, rural, orsuburpan nature of the LEA and the length of time the LEA had beenimplementing SEA policies similar to P.L. 94-142. Authors were to determinewhether a general set e criteria for determining porgress in implementation ofthe IRE provision could be used in varied contexts, or alternately, whethermultiple sets or criteria were needed for LEAs in different contexts.

In the initial formulation of the study, some thought was given to laterdevelopment of self-study guides which could be provided as a form of technicalassistance to SEAS and/or those LEAs who wanted to evaluate progress inimplementation. Over time, the position papers were conceptualized as anexploratory investigation concerning the feasibility of producirq self-studyguides on evaluation of implementation of the LRE provision. The papers were

1110

not to be the prototype self -study guides. From their efforts to develop criteria,however, determination of the feasibility of the task might be made.

THE IRE CRITERIA STUDY PANEL

The second part of the study involved briaging together a group largely ofeducational practitioners to discuss the position papers and provide recommen-dations to BEH. More specifically, the purpose of the panel was stated 'asfollows: To determine the feasibility of developing self-study guides which couldbe used by state and/or local education agencies to evaluate implementation ofthe least restrictive environment provision of P.L. 94-142. Feasibility wasdefined to include topics such as field-testing and dissemination; as well ascontent and format of possible guides.

The panel. meeting was structured into three distinct parts. First, authorspresented summaries of their papers and responded to questions. Sicond, a largegroup discussion was planned concerning issues related to the study. Finally,three small oups were formed to develop recommendations for BEH. For the,second and third activities, study questions were distriblted to panelists prior tothe meeting. These questons were intended to stimulate discussion and theformulae on of additional questions by panelists.

Questions for the large group session concentrated on the conceptualization ofthe study as presented in the guidelines for authors and also as presented by theactual position papers. For example, a series of questions addressed the conceptof progress towards implementation. and questions were posed regardingwhether all of the alternative criteria generated by the authors were indicative ofimplementation meeting the spirit of the law. One meior question asked of thegroup was whether, in fact, the BEH could support any further activities basedon this study without giving the impression that developed standards wereFederal standards. It was stressed that BEH not only had no intention ofimposing such standards, but also did not want to give 'the appeaiance ofsanctioning specific standards. By legislative intent, SEAS have been givenflexibility in implementation.

The group then was divided into Ogre smaller working groups which developedspecific recommendations to BEN OA the possible development, field-testing.and dissemination of sett-study guides. Specific questions poetid for these groupsinvolved the developers of the guides, comprehereeness of developed guides, aswell as field-testing and dissemination efforts, the format of self-study guidesand fieldtesting activities, and the utility of field-:sting developed self-studyguides. Questionsc were asked additionally whict, requested strategies forincreasing utility of the guides to LEAs.

11

The number of panelists was intentionally designed to be small. It was felt Mat a

small group would encourage an informal atmosphere and lively exchange of

leas. In selecting educational practitioners for the panel, emphasis was placed

on repreSeritir son from state and local education agencies.

The next part of this monograph presents the four position papers. As is soon

evident upon reading the papers, the authors varied in their implementing

definitions of the LRE concept. The extentipto which the authors were able to

specifically follow the guidelines provided to them varied according to the LRE

definition used

13 12

PART S

Approaches to Evaluate Implementationof the

LRE Provision of P.L. 94-142

SECTION I

Least Restrictive Environment

Sheila LowenbraunJames O. Alf lock

LOWENBRAUN, SHEILA. Dr. Lowenbraun has served as an Associate Professorof Education at the University of Washington since 1970. Prior to corning to theUniversity she was an Assistant Professor of Special Education at Colorado StateCollege, Greely, Colorado. Dr. Lowenbraun received her Ph.D. in SpecialEducation from Columbia University in 1969. She has worked in a residentialschool as a teacher of hearing impaired and multiply handicapped hearingimpaired children for three years. Last year she served a three-monthpost-doctoral internship at the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped,working in the Division of Innovation and Development on developing plans forthe evaluation of the impact of P.L. 94-142. Site has authored numerouspublications relating to P.L. 94-142. Her current affiliations include the Councilfor Exceptional Children, Conventiontbf American Institutions of the Deaf andAlexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf.

AFFLECK, JAMES 0. Dr. Affleck is a Professor of Education and has served aschairman of the Area of Special Education at the Universe of Washington since1968, Prior to obtaining his doctorate in Special Educe Jr) at Teachers College,Columbia University in 1968, Dr. Affleck was a te .ter of mentally retardedsecondary age students for nine years. He was a forrr.a educational consultant atUnited Cerebral Palsy Presch4o1 in New Jerre and a research Assistant atSonoma State Hospital, an institution for the re% ,rded in California. Dr, Affleckhas served as a member of the state Special Education Advisory Board, AmericanAssociation of Mental Deficiency, and the Washington Association for RetardedCitizens. lie is currently state chairman of the Council for Exceptional ChildrenPolitical Action Network, and has authored a variety of journal articles andpublications in special education.

1616

CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS PAPER

We are heavily indebted to the following people, who have made substantialcontributions to the paper by doing needed research, sharing their ideas andperspectives with us, and helping to write and synthesize the diverse topicsaddressed:

Mr, John Emerson, a doctoral candidate at the University ofWashington, researched and wrote the section on perceptions of andconcerns about LRE, as expressed b,* organizations and the press.

Ms. Jo Fleming, a doctoral student at the University of Washington,researched and synthesized the legal and legislative mandates for IRE.

Ms. Evelyn Chapman, a master's degree candidate in special education atthe University of Washington and the parent of a henoicapped child,shared with us her parent's perspective on the IRE.

Dr. Richard Neel, an associate professor of education at the Universityof Washington, prepared the section on the severely behaviorallydisordered child,

Mr. 'ihomas Lehning, Assistant Superintendent, Issaquah SchoolDistrict, ; nd Dr. William Tilly, Director of Special Educaticin, SeattlePublic Schools, addressed many of the practical issues involved inimplementing the IRE concept in a public school system.

Our special thanks to Ms. Connie Pious, Coordinator of Publications atthe University of Washington's Experimental Education Unit fEEU), forher editing assistance; to Mr. Michael Ward, EEU editor, for his researchassistance; and to Cheryl Mathisen, Lois Musgrave, and ShantelleBerryman, also of the EEU staff, for their clerical assistance.

17 1 7

Sheila LowenbraunJames a Affleck

1. LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT: THE CONCEPTS

Citation of the LawsP. L. 94.142The goal of P.1.. 94-142 is to guarantee equal educational opportunity for althandicapped children. Each state is responsible for developing a comprehensivePlan that provides a free and appropriate public education to all of itshandicapped children. These plans must include provisions for placement

decisions based upon the doctrine of the least restrictive environment. P.L.

94.142 requires that the state plans include:

. procedures to issuee that, to the maximum extent appropriate,handicapped children, including children in public c pritete institutions orother care facilities. are educated with children who are not handicapped, andthat special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of handicappedchildren from the regular educational environment occurs only when thenature or severity of the handicap is such that eductibn in regular classes withthe use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.(Sec.612 (S)

Therefore, all handicapped children are to be educated in as close proximity as

possible to nonhandicapped children. This policy is based on the idealistic

assumptions that ,ait; ious placement options will actually exist for eachhandicapped child and that the nature or severity of the handicap should be the

sole determinant of the extent to which the child can be educated with his or

her nonhaidicapped peers.

To provide educational placement in the environment that is least restrictive

certainly does not mandate that every handicapped child be mainstreamed into

the regular classroom, but does mandate the establishment of a continuum ofeducational environments within each service district in order to provide the

appropriate'placement for all handicapped children.

Education with nonhandicapped children "to the maximum extent appropriate"

means that each handicapped child's placement will be based entirely on his own

unique needs. The questions then become: which educational program is most

appropriate for each individual child's needs and how is this determined? "The

least restrictive alternative is the one that realizes the most appropriate match

between the characteristics of the pppil and the nature of the educational

environment." (Chiba & Semmel, 1977, p.27).

A popular conceptual schema for implementation of the least restrictive

environment is the "Cascade System."

This system presents nine educational program alternatives beginning withregular classroom in it regular school, which is the desired setting for theinsiority of children. Progression through the remaining settings, in whichgradually smaller rturnbers of children are placed, is determined by theincressing severity of children's handicaps and the consequent need for greateramounts of instructional and support resources. The most extreme setting inthe cascade, where the fewest number of children will be served, is thehospital. tAbesort, 1978, P. 5161

One of the basic assumptions behind the education of the handicapped is thatthey should progress toward normalcy. Therefore, a handicapped person shouldbe able to progress through the cascade toward less and less restrictiveeducational environments. If a handicapped child is to continue receiving his orher educational programming in any one setting, or if movement towards morerestriction is indicated, these decisions must be based on firm evaluative data.

The crux of the solution is that the planning of delivery systems must createone integrated system of alternatives open to all chili* en. not one for theso-celled normals and another for the handicapped. There mu:* be one systemwhich is and remains biotic for all children and serves as the junction forbringing to handicapped children the services they need. tAbeson, 1976,P.5201

Section 504 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973.Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 provides that "no otherwisequalified handicapped individual . . shall, solely by reason of his handicap. beexcluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected todiscrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financialassistance."

"The regulation, which applies to all recipients of federal assistance from HEW,is intended to ensure that their federally assisted programs and activities areoperated without discrimination on the basis of handicap" (U. S. Department ofHEW, 1977b, p. 22676).

Subpart D concerns preschool, elementary. and secondary education and is veryclosely coordinated with the provision of P.L. 94.142. A free appropriateeducation is to be provided to all handicapped children in the most normalsetting appropriate. Proper evaluation procedures are to be used to ensuie properplacement and due process procedures are specified to handle Jisputes overplacement

Amptification of the LRE Concept in Rules and Regulations

94.142.The rules and regulations for implementing Part B of tne Education for AU

j

. Handicapped Act contain specific references to placement in the Mast resti ictiveenvironment. Part E. Procedural Safeguards (1218.550-1218.558), contains themajor rules and regulations concerning the least restrictive environment. Thefollowing is a summary of that section.

Every state must ensure that each public agency makes provisions for educatinghandicapped children with nonhandicapped children except when inappropriatebemuse of the nature or severity of the handicap. The proviso applies equally tochildren attending public or private institutions. These agencies must provide acontinuum of special education placement alternatives including "instruction inregular classes, special classes, special schools, home instruction, and instructionin hospitals and institutions." (U. S. Department of HEW. 1977a., p. 42497)Supplementary services, such as resource rooms and itinerant instruction, mustalso be available.

The handicapped child's actual placement will be determined at least annuallyand will be based upon his o" her individualized education program. The childshould attend the school which is as close as possible to his or her home and itshould be the school the child wculd attend if he or she were not handicapped.

The child should not only be educated with, but should also participate innonacademic and extracurricular services and activities with, nonhandicappedpews. These include meals, recess periods, and such things as athletics.transportation, and health services.'

The States shall insure that all administrators and teachers in the state are fullyinformed of their responsibilities for educating children in the least restrictivesetting and shall provide technical assistance and training for helping them tofulfill these responsibilities. The state educational agency shall monitor eachpublic agency to see that all placements are made in compliance with this policyand will assist in making any corrections in placement if necessary.

Other refer*enoes to the provision of the least restrictive environment involve thecontent of State Annual Program Plans and Local Educational AgencyApplications. Each State must explain in its annual plan how the state willprovide education in the least restrictive environment, the number ofhandicapped children who are Participating in regular education programs, andthe number of handicapped children who are in separate classes or separateschool facilities. (121a.132)

The local educational agencies must also include in their applications a rances

for compliance with the least restrictive environmert provision, and must specifythe types of alternative placements and the number of handicapped children ineach type of placement. (1218.:27)

20

Section We the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1913Section 504 is, in most important aspects, very similar to P.L. 94142 withregard to the least restrictive environment provisions. 84.34 of Subpart 0specifies that each handicapped person shall be educated wjth nonhandicappedpersons to the maximum extent possible to meet his or her educational needs.The proximity to the person's home of an alternative placement. if such aplacement is deemed necessary because of the nature or severity of a person'shandicap. must be taken into account. Nonacademic and extracurricular servicesand activities must be provided with nonhandicapped persons.

Under 84.34 there is also a provision which states that if a handicapped child'sbehavior is so disruptive in a regular classroom as to seriously impair the learningof the other children, such placement may be determined to be inappropriate. ifseparate facilities are determined appropriate to the educational needs of ahindicapped child, the facilities must be comparable in quality to those thatserve nonhandicapped children.

Origins and Interpretations Found in Jurisprudence

The least restrictive alternative principle arose out of the due process clause ofthe 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Although many court cases have been based upon the principle that'all childrenhave a right to a free apprtipriate public education, the courts have alsoaddressed the issue of appropriateness of educational programs in a manner thatrelates directly to the least restrictive alternative concept.

Prior to the 1960's, handicapped children were often excluded from the publicschools or placed in substandard educational settings without any hearingregarding placement. Consequently, the doctrines of due process and the leastrestrictive alternative emerged as the legal principles upon which much of thelitigation in special education hat been bated. This litigation is turn hasresulted in the incorporation of due process and least restrictive alternativeprovisions in both state and federal legislation culminating in theenactment ofPA. 94-142 [Chiba at Sernmel. 1977, p.191

Two court cases that specifically related to the requirements of the leastrestrictive environment were the Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children

Cornmonvvealth of Pennsylvania (PARC, and Mills v. Board ofEducation of the District of Columbia !Mills, 1972). In the former case, thecourt rules that:

It is the Commonwealth's obligation to place each mentally retarded child in afree, public program of education and training appropriate to the child's

21'21

4

capacity, within the context of a presumption that, among the alternetive

programs of education and mining required by statute to be available,placement in a .egular public school class is preferable .. toplacement in any

other type of program of education. (334 FSupp. at 12601

The Mills case ordered the implementation of due process and least restrictive

alternatives not only for mentally retarded children, but also for all handicapped

children.

In a class action suit, Diana v. Board of Education, nine Mexican- American

children alleged that they had been place inappropriately in a class fpr thementally retarded on the basis of inaccurate test scores. This suit led, among

other due process %lifeguards. to a provision in the California code that "children

of any ethnic, socioecunomic, and cultural group not be placed in classes or

special prbgrams for the educable mentally retarded if they can be served .11

regular classes" (Chiba & Semmel, 1977, p. 20).

In the Wyatt v Stidcney decision, the judge ruled, concerning Partlow State

School, that "no person shall be admitted to the institution unless a prior

determination shall have been made that residence in the institution is the least

restrictive habilitation setting feasible for that person" (Soskin, 1977. p. 29).

In the Willowbrook case (New "ork State Association for Retarded Children v.

Carey), the court ordered that the population of the Willowbrook State School

of 5700 residents be reduced to 250 or fewer within six years. In a similar case.

Horacek v. Exon, the population of Beatrice State School was to be decreased

from 1000 to 250 within three years.

There have also been recent attempts within the state courts to mandate

placement of mentally retarded persons in less restrictive environments within

the community. In the case of Jcyce Z., the judge ruled that a profoundly

retarded girl be placed with foster parents in the community rather than in an

institution and that the state pay for this special foster hon... In the case of

Stephanie L., the court ruled that this 17-year-old mildly retarded girl no longer

required but that she did need. a "closely supervised.'r idstructured entisl program in her own community which could provide

essential behavior Modification programs to help her adjust to living in thecommunity" (Soskin, 1977, p. 32). The judge ruled that this placement be

organized and funded.

Many federal and state court cases have created or upheld the principle of the

least restrictive alternative for placement of handicapped individuals. The court

22 22

cases, together with federal and state laws, have culminated in the enactment ofP.1.. 94-142. Undoubtedly, this prineput will need to be defended many moretimes in our nation's courts before total implementation is realized. However,the foundation for insuring this basic right of handicapped children to beeducated in the least restrictive environment has been laid and will continue tobe built upon.

From the foregoing analysis of the laws, rules and regulations, and jurisprudencethrfollowing general guidelines may be deduced, and these wit; be used indiscussion of the LRE concept throughout this paper.

1. All handicapped children have the right to an education in the least restrictiveenvironment possible for them.

2. Placement in a less restrictive environment cannot be denied simply becausethe option does not exist in a specific service district. if an option does notexist, but is deemed appropriate for a given child, there exists legal precedentto mandate the establishment and funding of the appropriate placement.

3. A child's placement is determined after, and because of, the IndividweizedEducational Plan Conference, No child may be placed in an educationalenvironment simply on the basis of a categorical label or presumed level offunctioning.

4. The least restrictive environment concept is not synonymous with theconcept of mainstreaming. Least Restrictive Environment mandates acontinuum of services; mainstreaming is one point along that continuum.

PERCEPTIONS OF AND CONCERNS ABOUT"LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT"

The term "least itrictive environment," as defined and mandated by thelegislation, has aceived considerable attention by professional teacherorganizations, special interest groups, and the popular press. The term"oainstreaming" is often erroneously interchanged with "least restrictiveenvironment" or "least restrictive alternative" and has caused concern, and oftenalarm, to many in the field of education. It is therefore useful to explore tilt:perceptions and misperceptions of this topic as published by the Council forExceptional Children (CEC), the National Education Association (NEA), theAmerican Federation of Teachers (AFT), the New York Times. Time magazine,and other national news sources. It is also necessary to explore the way IRE isperceived by parents of handicapped children whose placement will be affectedby this policy.

23

Council for Exceptional children

in speaking to the issue of least restrictive educational environments, the accautions that the term is not a provision for mainstreaming (Ballard and Zettel,1977). They also emphasize that it does not mandate that all handicappedchildren be educated in the regular classroom, and it does not abolish anyparticular educational environment such as those found in residential settings.They stress that the itnportano of this provision of P.L. 94-142 is that it doesmandate that education with nonhandicapped children will be the governingobjective "to the maximum extent appropriate"; the IEP will be themanagement tool toward achievement of the least restrictive environment, and

. therefore shall be Applied within the framework of meeting the unique needs ofeach child; and the IEP document must clearly "show cause" if and when onemoves from a less restrictive to a more restrictive environment.

CEC goes on to explain that Section 504 is nearly identical to the leastrestrictive environment provision in P.L. 94-142 with one distinction. The 504regulation seems to consider the "nearest placement to home" as an additionaldeterminant of instructional placement in the least restrictive environment(Ballard and Zettel, 1977). Parenthetically, in many urban areas this provision of504 is directly contradictory to the desegregation efforts currently underway. inmany ratan areas, if a handicapped child attended a school close to home hemight be isoioted from substantial numbers of his chronological age mates whoare being bused elsewhere.

Abeson and Ballard (1977) point out that, although the law invokes the right ofhandicapped children to receive instruction in the "least restrictiveenvironment." the federal government is concerned that each child's individualedubational needs be fully met. They go on to say that all handicapped childrenshall be educated as closely as possible to nonhanoicapped children, dependingon their individual needs and disabilities. CEC states that P.L. 94-142acknowledges that special classes, separate schooling, or other removal from theregular educational environment will be required to meet the appropriateinstructional needs of many children when "the nature or severity of thehandicap is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementaryaids and services cannot be achieved Satisfactorily." Abeson and Ballard (1977)conclude that the Congress clearly desires that the principle of integration, notsegregation, be the governing objective for all children.

National Education Association (NEA)

The NEA discusses the IRE provision predominantly in terms of"mainstreaming." The NEA has taken an "advocaiy view" of mainstreaming but

has spelled out specific circumstances under which it should occur

24 24

("Mainstreaming handicapped students," 1975). They support mainstreaminghandicapped students only when severs) conditions are met. Among these are:(a) a favorable learning experience for both the handicapped and regularstudents; (b) appropriate instructional materials, supportive services, and pupilpersonnel services for the teacher and the handicapped student; (c)modifications in class size, scheduling, and curriculum design to accommodatethe shifting demands that mainstreaming creates, raid (d) adequate additkval'Funding and resources for mainstreaming used exclusively for that purpose("Mainstreaming," 1976).

NEA President John Royer (1976) cautions that mainstreaming can swell classrolls and advocates reductions in teacher/pupil ratios. Royer also recommendsthe thorough preparation of both regular and special teachers for their new rolesbefore mainstreaming receives full NEA support. If a teacher feels that theplacement of a handicapped student in his/her classroom is unjust or inequitable,the NEA suggests the teacher calla went/school administrator conference andrecommend a change in the IEP, or file a complaint with the state department ofeducation and the state advisory panel. If these two steps fail, the teacher shouldfile a grievance under the collective bargaining contract (NEA TeacherInformation Sheet, 1977).

Speaking to the issue of "least restrictive environment," the NEAdoes point outthat the phrestt does not automatically mean that all handicapped students willbe mainstreamed ( Royer, 1977; and "Schooling the handicapped," 1977). It isstated that for some handicapped children, depending on the nature and severityof their disability, the least restrictive environment may be a separate. protectiveone. This point is again stressed by U.S. Senator Edward Brooke (1977) in anNEA publication. He states that P.L. 94.142 mandates that handicappedchildren be educated in the regular classroom with their nonhandicapped Peers.unless their particular educational needs cannot be met in that way.

American Federation of Teachers

The AFT has spent considereble time and effort addressing the impact of94-142 and its provision for "least restrictive environment." Albert Shenker(1977b). president of AFT, stated in a Isle to Federation leaders that the AFTnational policy supports the least rftiativi environment placement cqncePt as

. stated in the law, when it is implemented under proper conditions. He warns.however, that safeguards against abuses of mainstreaming in the regulations arevery weak. Shenker (1977b) urges AFT leaders to document abuses such as

wholesale return of special education students to regular classrooms, firingof special education personnel, the lack of inserwica training for regularteachers, and high class sins Which lessen the quality of education received byboth regular and special children (p. 41

4

25

. In letter to the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped, Shenker (1977c)

again addiisses the concept of the least restrictive environment. He urges that

Sec. 1218.442(2) be strengthened to "consider any potential harmful effect or

the child or on the quality of services the child needs" and to "prohibitplacement of children in settings unprepared to meet their needs." He conclude*,

"We are disturbed by reports from all over the country that least restrictive

environment placements are already being maderwith little regard to the welfare

of special and 'twist children" ip.

On several occasions, the AFT has spoken to the issue-Vet mainstreaming is

boing used by the scriool d;ttricts as a means of saving money (Shenker, 1977a.

1977c; Mseroff, 1977). Their main concern is that administrators will opt for

Pim:omen+ of handicapped children in regular classrooms r I r than "costly"special education programs in Order to save money. AFT et states that any

decision not to place the handicapped in a normal classroom can be overruled by

a parent (Shenker. 1977a).

The AFT fears misinterpretation and abuse of theleast restrictive environment

concept with the dismantling of residential, regional, and self-contained

classroom programs fordethe hanoicapped (Humphrey,. 1977). They seek

assurance that slecial education funds follow the handicapped child who ismainstreamed with adequate supportive services.

The mainstreaming issue is also evident in current contract nootiations. The

AFT urges that collective-bargaining agreements include statements limiting the

number of handicapped students allowed in regulaysxlastreioms (Rauth). The

union supports mainstreaming but "only when it isiin the best interest of the

child, and only when proper steps have been taken to assure that teachers.

students, and the regular classroom all,are prepared for meaningful change" (p.,

9).

Time Magazine

During the last two years, Time has reported t.in P.L. 94-142 and its effect on

special and regular education in three articles. The iirst ("Into the Mainstream,"

1976) reported that P.L. 94.142 favored integration of handicapped students

into regular classes as soon as is feasible for all but the most severely4° handicapped. They go on to report' that this integration will .accomplish three

objectives: (1) the handicapped will achieve more both academically and

socially, (2) the regular classroom exposure will help the handicapped cope with

the "real world' when they are adults, and (3) exposure to handicapped persons

. helps normal children understand individual differences in people. They

continue by stating that it is often difficult for the handicapped to fit in withnonhandicapped peers and cite the case of a hyperactive boy who hanged

himself after spending two months in a regular classroom where he was,....

continuously teunted. There are reports of schools putting handicapped pupilsinto regular classrooms while cutting back previously existing special educationservices. The article concludes that teachers may want to limit the number ofhandicapped children who are placed in their classes as the "handicapped willadd a burden and take sway time from normal children."

in another article ( "D -Day for the Disabled," 1977). it is reoorted that only 40percent of the handicapped now receive an adequate special education and,according to the law, the remaining 60 percent must be placed in a "hintrestrictive environment" by September 1978. Senator Edward Brooke (R Mass.)concludes that schools may mainstream ill-prepared children into regularclassrooms because such placement will be less expensive than smaller specialclasses. The article states that traditionally trained teachers tack any backgroundin special education and will have a difficult time in dealing with severely s°handicapped children placed in their classes. The effect of mainstreaming on the'handicapped when they are taken from the familiar, protective environment ofthe special classroom is also discussed.

in a more recent Time article ("New Day for the Handicapped," 1977), it isstated that handicapped children must be given a free public education and, asoften es possible, by mainstreaming them with normal children in regularclassrooms. Three accounts of very successful integration experiences byelementary and secondary students are discussed. However, it is pointed out thatparents of nonhandicapped children feel the overall quality of education willsuffer from this integratiim. Problems with the high cost of retraining teachers todeal with the handicapped and the lack of adequate funding for P.L. 94.142 arepointed out. The article concludes with a quote from a regular classroomteacher: "But the fact is, weare doing it. Many of these kids are now in schoolwith their brothers and sisters."

The New York Times

The Now York Time has devoted considerable space to the question of movingthe handicapped to least restrictive environments in both their daily newspaperand the Sunday magazine. The New York Education t)swenissioner itated-that-"mainstreaming" is beneficial to both the handicapped and nonhandicappedbecause it tends to discourage the labeling and stereotyping that limits the waypeople see these children and, ultimately, the way the handicapped seethemselves (Carroll, 1975). Regular classroom teachers were reported to befearful of having to teach the handicapped since they felt it was easier to dealwith homogeneous classic The article concludes that ending the isolation of thehandicapped will allow them to become an accepted part of the life of theSchool and the community.

Gine Matron (1975) reports that the is aguage of P.L. 94-142 clearly favors

27

Integrating the handicapped into regular classes. He quotes directly from the lawthat the handicapped should be "educated with children who are nothandicapped unless the nature or severity of the handicap is such that education,in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids ,.nd services cannot beachieved satisfactorily." Two other Now York Times articles report that, sincethe passage of P.L. 94-142, handicapped children must be educated inclassrooms with those who are not disabled, whenever possible ("Aid Bin Votedfor Handicapped," 1975; Matron, 1977).

Reporter Fred Hechinger (1976) writes in the New York Times that themainstreaming approach to education of the handicapped amounts to aneducational revolution. He reports that mainstreaming came to the foregroundwith the passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act and citescritics who warn of adding substantial numbers of youngsters with a diversity ofproblems to the responsibilities of the "ordinary, already harassed classroomteacher." The difficulties of integrating the handicapped are seen as multipliedby the inadequate preparation of the teachers who are asked to accept thesestudents into their classes. It is also reported that children with physicalhandicaps are often endowed with average or above average intellectual andmotivational qualities and may become an asset to the regular classroom,whereas the mentally retarded children's sense of defeat and frustration might beincreased by competition with their nonhandicapped peers. The emotionallydisturbed child, according to Hechinger. is seen as disrupting the educationalprocedures and if integrated, may arouse anger and antagonism in classmates.

Hechinger does point out that mainstreaming does not mean the end of specialservices and quotes the Council for Exceptional Children as promoting resourcerooms. CEC also states that mainstreaming does not mean the wholesale returnof all exceptional children to regular classes and is not less costly thanself-contained classrooms.

According to Hechinger, teachers unions are reported to be seeking contractualprovisions which would state that for every handicapped student mainstreamed,the class size would be reduced by three regular pupils. In conclusion, the authorstates that many students harbor strong prejudices against the handicapped andmay not accept them readily into their classrooms. He warns of the "bandwagonof instant change and the confusion between civil rights and, the right kind ofeducation for every child."

Teacher concern over the issue of mainstreaming was reportea in detail by theNew York Times in an article "Teachers Weigh Limit on thu Number ofHandicapped Pupils per Class" (Maeroff. 1976). Complaints included lack ofadequate preparation or commensurate relief from usual teaching loads whenhandicapped children are placed in their classes. Tens of thousands of

28 a

handicapped children are reportedly being forced into schools which are notpreparee to serve them. The author defines mainstreaming as putting ahandicapped stutmmt into as many parts of the regular program as theyoungster's physical, emotional, or mental condition allows.

Maeroff (1976) states that teachers see the lack of understanding of the variousdisabilities they may find in their classrooms as a central concern. Severaltestimonials are given of negative experiences with mainstreamed handicappedstuderitt. Teachers reported that they were less able to find time to work withhandicapped children and their teaching days were now long and tiring. Anofficial from New York's United Federation of Teachers states that no teacherwho is unwilling should have to accept a mainstreamed handicapped child.

The Mw York Times reported that recent court decisions and P.L. 94.142 haveforced hundreds of thousands of handicapped students to be mainstreamed intoregular elementary and secondary schools ("On 'reaching the Handicapped,"1976). Teachers' concern with having the handicapped in their classes isaddressed in another article (Miiofsky, 1977), Teachers point out that teachingthe handicapped requires special skills and attention and they have an "innatifear" of mainstreaming because of lack of understanding. Advocates ofintegration contend that most handicapped children can adapt to a regularclassroom if proper efforts are made at adjustment.

Reporter Nancy Hicks (1977) writes on the financial impact of integrating thehandicapped into regular school programs. She reports that if onefifth of thementally retarded, learning disabled, and emotioaally disturbed children wereshifted from special education programs into full time regular classrooms. thecost of their education would be reduced annually by $235 million. If antherfraction of the quarter of a million physically handicapped children in specialprograms were moved into regular classes, she reports, another $65 millionwould be saved annually.

The Ow York Times Magazine recently printed a lengthy article warning againstmainstreaming the deaf student (Greenberg and Doolittle, 1977). It reports thatPA.. 94.142 requires public schools to educate all deaf children and they are notprepared to serve them adequately in the comprehensive manner found in thesegregated schools. Mainstreaming for the deaf is seen as forcing untrainedteachers in already overcrowded classrooms to deal with a new group of studentswho are vulnerable socially, psychologically, and educationally. Severalspokesmen for the deaf call mainstreaming a devastating experience for hugenumbers of children. The article states that only 10 percent of deaf children canbe successfully mainstreamed because the others would be adversely affected bythe untrained teachers, rejection by their nonhandicapped peers, and the absenceof special materials for the deaf in regular cis %rooms. Or. Schrieber, head of theNational Association of the Deaf, states, "I don't think it will work." Several

29 2

deaf. students and teachers of the deaf ware interviewed and shared the beliefthat the deaf would not be able to achieve their greatest potential ifmainstreamed into regular public school programs.

Other Publications

U.S. Netts and World Report reported that Section 504 of the RehabilitationAct of 1973 mandates that public schools must now intermingle handicappedstudents with "normal" students to the fullest extent possible and not segregatethem in classrooms and schools of their own ("Rights for the Handicapped,"1977). A spokesman for the National Association for Secondary SchoolPrinzipals states that, since the emotionally distrubed are included 'in P.L.94-.142, teachers will find some very difficult situations in trying to incorporatethere into regular classes. He feels that the class as a whole will not progress asfast because of the sudden presence of handicapped children. Some schooladministrators are reported to be at the point of rebellion on the issue ofcompliance with the new federal regulations.

Psychology Today defines "Nast restrictive alternative" as placing childrenwhere they can be best educated at the least distance from mainstream society(Molloy. "New Help for the Handicapped," 1975). Any segregated or restrictiveschool program should aim at eventually integratingthe handicapped child backinto a public school setting, according to the author. He 'states that theintegration of handicapped children into regular classes is a means of allowingthe handicapped to contribute to society as parents, workers, and taxpayers.

Parental Perspective

While P.L. 94-142 offers handicapped students the opportunity to become a partof the mainstream of the educational system, and guarantees the right to theleast restrictive educational setting, the parents of handicapped students may notbe willing to approve placements in a "least restrictive" program. It s necessaryfor agencies at both the national and local level to understand some of thereasons parents may resist such placement.

Mentally or physically handicapped students, or those with significant sensorydeficits, have historically been treated by the general public with varying degreesof rejection. Children with observable physical differences have been especiallydiscriminated against, Parents have been conditioned by a long series ofsituations from the time the handicapped child is born to distrust- the generalpublic, providers of generic services such as medical and dental care, and socialservice agencies. People stop mothers on the street to ask what is wrong with thehandicapped child; generic service providers either flatly refuse to serve the

30

30

handicapped child or charge premium service rates and act at though they aredoing the parent a favor by providing the service. Social service agenciessometimes start from the premise that the parents are "guilty" of some misdeedwhich mused the handicapping conditionfs), rather than assisting them to findappropriate services.

By the time handicapped children reach school age, their parents are thereforelately to have a protective attitude towards them and to avoid rejectionsituations by seeking "comfortable" environments where there are other puir antswho have gone through the same kinds of problems with children who needsimilar services. The abrupt change from familiar services and settings will startalarm bells ringing in the parents' minds about how their children are going tofunction in a situation where there may be few children with handicaps andmany children who have never been around handicapped children. There aregood reasons for these parents to be concerned.

The national studies on violence in the schools have provided alarming dataabout physical assaults on teachers and other students. Handicapped students areless able to protect themselves against such violence, and mentally or physicallyhandicapped students may not have the skills to avoid potentially dangeroussituations.

Parents are concerned about exploitation of all kinds. Statistics are justbeginning to be gathered on sexual abuse of developmentally disabled students.The Rape Reduction Program of the City of Seattle reports that in 1977, 16non-solicited complaints were handled. Now that a developmental disabilitiesspecialist has teen hired, about five cases a month are referred. and it is expectedthat more will be reported as the program starts training teachers in how toreport such cases.

According to Janet Taggart (director of the program), who has investigatedmany of these cases, the building principals do not have training in handlingsexual abuse cases, and want the handicapped student, rather than the studentwho performed the act of assault, to be transferred from the building. Theclassroom teachers, also not trained and uneasy about the whole area of sexualabuse, are not able to "..iceive" the message of possible assault from thehandicapped student. They therefore miss some of the early signals which couldlead to prevention, rather than reaction after the actual assault occurs. r

L.Another area of exploitation which concerns parents is the introduction ofhandicapped students .to drugs and alcohol. Unscrupulous drug dealers or fellowstudents may see the handicapped student as an "easy" mark. The handicappedstudent probably does, not have the skills to say "no" when approached by suchpersons and will not generally have a supportive socialgroup to back up refusals.

Parents are also concerned about the possibility that their children will beinfluenced by less lawful elements in the school into performing acts such asstealing or destroying property both on the school grounds and in theCommunity. The King County Dysfunctional Offender Program, DevelopmentalDisabilities Division, state of Washington, estimates that they have had 24 activeCase from September, 1977, to the present. Statewide, 48 requests for referralsand information have been received because other counties Pick such a service. Itis expected that more referrals will by made now that a specialist has been hired.

Least restrictive programs will probably emphasize teaching secondaryhandicapped students to use public transportation systems, and parents areparticularly concerned that their children will become more accessible to allkinds of dangerous and exploitative situations in the community while travelingto and from school.

Aside from these very real concerns about the safety of their handicappedchildren, thoughtful parents will look very closely at the quality of educationalprograms in less restrictive school environments.

School programs have not served the handicapped child well, whether theirstudents were mildly handicapped or more severely involved. Parent advocacygroups have lobbied and pressured for better quality programs throughorganizing efforts at "segregated" facilities where communication and commongc, els have resulted in program changes. If students are scattered throughoutschool systems, parents' capability of organizing groups is lessened considerably.

The three major problem areas in programs are these:

1. Handicapped students are taught the same skills over and over again becausedistricts have not identified criteria for advancing pupils to more difficultskill levels. This penalizes both the more severely handicapped studentbecause educational potential is wasted, and the mildly handicapped studentbecause opportunities to ret'irn to the mainstream of services are cut off asthe student gets further and further behind peers.

2. Handicapped students are denied the opportunity to learn some educationalskills solely because particular subject matter is not taught. not because thehandicapped students cannot learn. For example, handicapped students maybe taught to read by the phonics method but not given practice incomprehension skills, making the reading activity less useful: Or, programsmay concentrate on reading, but leave out written expression entirely.Curriculum sequences are not comprehensive.

3. Handicapped students are taught irrelevant skills when they could be learningmore important skills; or they are taught subject matter that is out ofsequence and that they are therefore unable to perform. An example is thecourse in tow to balance and keep a checkbook that is ogfered before thepupil has acquired the prerequisite *ills in addition and subtraction.

3232

With these types of problems found in more restrictive school Programs. parentsare concerned about what will hseTe.n if the students are transferred to lessspecialized programs. Students who have already been placed in "mainstream"programs have found themselves treated like the retarded boy in the shop classwho always swept the floor and was never taught to use the tools.

Suggested Responses to Perceptionsof and Concerns about LRE

The authors of this paper support the concept of Least Restrictive Environment,and strongly advocate such placement for all handicapped children. However,even a superficial perusal of the popular press and of professional organizations'publications gives cause for deep concern. If the , LRE mandate is to besuccessfully carried out within a Local Education Agency, it would seemadvisable to deal with the public conception:, of and concerns about this topic ina respectful and realistic manner. The followingsuggestions are offered.

1. The term "Least Restrictive Environment" should be used at all times, andshould be disassociated from the term "mainstreaming." "Mainstreaming,"besides beirigOn. inaccurate portrayal of the LRE mandate, seems also to behighly negatively loaded to regular educators and administrators and to thepublic.

2. A public education plan, utilizing the media and the services of organizationssuch as the PTSA, should realistically portray the goals, expected outcomes,and potential problems of the LRE mandate.

3. The implementation of the IRE mandate should be included in contractnegotiations with teachers. Bargaining points might realistically include:reduction in class load, provision of supplemental aides and services, andinservice education. The LRE mandate should not be viewed by either partyas an attempt to save money, but rather as an attempt to use a finite set ofmonetary and personnel resources to most effectively serve both handicappedand normal children within the public school system.

II. PHILOSOPHICAL, SOCIOLOGICAL,AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

Assumptions Underlying the LRE Mandate

Including provisions for the least restrictive environment in P. L. 94-142 isconsistent with the liberal idealistic philosophy that is characteristic of the entireact. It is predicated on a series of beliefs and assumptions that have been a partof American educational phenomena throughout most of the nation's history.

There has traditionally been movement towards equality of oppatunity for allcitizens that has called for legislative and judicial actions; these have eliminatedthe legal obstacles for various groups who were discriminated against. TheFourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments toihe U.S. Constitution, the BrownDecision of 1954, the Voter's Rights Law of 1965, and the Affirmative Action

-Executive Order of September, 1965 (No. 11247) have conclusively andcollectively made it illegal to discriminate against members of racial minoritiessolely on the basis of race. There is similar progress towards eliminittingdiscrimination because of sex and sexual orientation. Additionally, P.L. 94-142,through the LRE provison, and Section 504 of the Vocational RehabilitationAct of 1973 now provide for eliminating discrimination on the basis ofhandicapping conditions. All of these clarifications of human rights have beenpreceded by a degree of social unrest and determined, prodigious effort byproponents and opponents; they have all been followed by attempts atimplementation. The public schools of the United States tend to be viewed asthe major avenue for carrying out the desired social changes. This point of viewis clearly articulated by the following excerpts from the Congressional Record:

Congressional Record Nouse, November 18, 1975, Mr. Dominick V. Daniels,p. N71353

I am also pleased with the provision of the conference report that assure thathandicapped children will receive the educational benefits of this program inthe company of children who are not handicapped. Of course. Practicallimitations will have to be set on this participation, but the provision stronglyunderscores my own personal conviction that handicapped children mutt bemade to feel that they are a useful and appreciated component of Americansociety. Further, 1 believe the opportunity to share leaning experiences withhandicapped children will broaden the personal growth of classmates who arenot handicapped. Lessons of patience, understanding, and the ability toprovide peer encouragement are lust as valuable as traditional educationallessons to the future citizens of this nation.

Congressional Record Senate, June 18, 1975, Mr. Stafford. p. S10951

If we allow and, indeed, encourage handicapped children and northandicappedchildren to be educated together as early as possible, their attitudes towardeach other in later life will not be such obstacles to Overcome. A child whogoes to school *very day With another child who is confined to a htelchairwill understand far better in later life the limitations and abilities of such anindividual when he or she is asked to work with, or is in a position to hire.such an individual.

Though one can hardly disagree with the presumed outcome, there is alegitimate need to question the efficacy of the public schools in bringing it about

indeed, one must question their viat;lity as an instrument of social change.Further, one must sound a warning about encouraging dangerously highexpectations. The failure to fulfill these will inevitably lead to disappointment.

Social Changes and the Public Schools

The studies of sociologists such as Hollingshead 11949) portrayed the publicscnools as conservative reflections of their communities. The social class of astudent, though ',ever acknowledged as a factor, was most highly related to hisgrades, completion t' high school, and even participation in extra- curricularactivities. Kimbrough 41964) has noted that the actual decision making regardingthe public schools is made by the thost conservative business and "old money"interests, who make sure they are amply represented on school boards. Kirp, inSchools as Sorters . . . (1973); states that the courts have consistently foundability grouping and tracking to be discriminatory (Hanson vs. Hobson, 1971).Nevertheless, the schools have not abandoned this practice.

Of 180 school administrators from ability grouped districts who responded tothe Question, 'What do you consider to be the disadvantages of homogeneousgrouping in your school district?" only nine indicated that grouping "does notnecessarily result in better learning." . . Fewer still noted problems withestablishing criteria for grouping, of recognized that grouping "tends to 'lock'slower learners into slow groups." The recognition of possible educationalherrn (as distinguished from social harm) ~liven less among districts thatused limited grouping, or no grouping at all. . . (Footnotes 56, Se: Kicp,1973, 0. 717, citing study by Findley Bryan, 1971: and Teachers' OpinionPoll.. Ability Grouping. NEA, 1968.1

The stance of elected officials against busing for racial integration, the currentpublic discussion regarding increasingly poorer scores achieved by Americanstudents on college entrance examinations, the continued flight of whiteAmericans to the suburbs, and endless problems in desegregating the schoolsinclice, if not a conservative backlash, a persistent resistance to social changewithin the schools. It is apparent that the schools are responsive but notresponsible. That the schools must be changed before they become aninstrument of societal change is generally overlooked. Kenowitz, Zweibel, andEdgar (1977) have noted a discrepancy between the LRE provisions of 94-142and school officials' planning for future programs and educational settings forseverely handicapped students. The school officials preponderantly outline themost restrictive environments, special schools. special wings. etc., for thesestudents. These authors note a "communication loop" between governmentagencies, professional organizations, and educational theoreticians concernedwith the handicapped that has served to mutually reinforce themselves but hasnot yet had a significant impact on those who are actually making educationaldecisions for the future.

In addition, the prevailing image of today's secondary schools is one of holdingpelts whose first duty is to keep young people out of the labor pool by"entertaining" rather than educating them (Time Magazine, 1977) furtherdissipates the schools' credibility as a potent social engineering force.

3 :;)

The decrease in the number of new inventions,' the decrease in basic researchactivities, the acceleration in activity to provide more resources for giftedstudents may be the indicators of another resurgence of the post-Sputnik era,when resources are diverted to the intellectually elite and meritocracy takesprecedence over the populist conception of equality. The irony of all of this maybe that these policy changes, whether good or bad, take place primarily in a"communication loop" and rarely bring substantive Orange to the classroom.Perhaps the real change agents have been factors that have not been given muchattention, such as the abandonment of the in loco parentis concept during thesixties, the lack of enforcement of mandatory school attendance statutes, oreven other unidentified and unsuspected variables.

The Emersonian philosophy of the Rev. Jesse Jackson is presently widelyreported in the press and may be another indicator of retrenchment after thedashing of what have proven to be unwarranted hopes for minority citizens.Black unemployment remains at an alltime high, especially among youth. Thiswas not the promise of the Brown decision and the subsequent legislation andadjudication. The parallels between 4se historical revolution of racialdesegregation and the present expected revolution for the handicapped citizenbecause of the enactment of 94-142 and Section 504 of VocationalRehabilitation Act (1973) should temper the exuberance of anyone expectingrapid and substantive change. Handicapped persons, their parents, and advocatesshould take a critical look at these parallels. The cruelty of raising unrealistichopes and underestimating the work necessary to implement even the mosthumane laws must be faced directly; otherwise, there is even more to losethrough disillusionment and alienation. The dialogue must be extended beyondthe communication loop that includes the handicapped and their advocates.Surprisingly to some, there are many Americans who do not empathize withhandicapped people. The character Pam's soliloquy from "A Day in the Death ofJoe Egg" (Nichols, 1967) portrays an attitude that, though sotto voce at present,can be depended upon to emerge among these people as handicapped individualsbecome their children's classmates or their co-workers.

Oh, charming. . . I keep looking at that door and thinking she's going tocome through it any moment with that poor weirdie. I know it's awful but it'sone of my you know THINGS. We're none of us perfect I can't standanything N.P.A. Non-Physically Attractive. Old women in bathing suits andskin diseases and cripples.... No good, I lust can't look at them. OnePlace we went, there were these poor freaks with oh, you know

The Patent Office Garotte reports that 70,3413 general patents were issued in1978, 65,290 in 1977, We cite these figures to offer merely one index of changingpriorities.

36 36

enormous heads and so on and you just feel: oh. put them out of' theirmisery. Well, they wouldn't have survived 10nature, It's only modern medicineso modern medicine should be allowed to do away with them., .1 love myown immediate family and that's the lot. Can't manage any morel want to gohome and see them again, They may rat be the mor hardworking,wellbehaved geniuses on (forth. but no one in their right mind could say theywere (pp. 624131

To reiterate: the assumptions underlying the IRE mandate seem to be that a)schools can and should function as social change agents, and b) physicalproximity is a necessary and perhaps sufficient basis for mutual respect,empathy, and understanding, and that the 'separate is not equal' doctrine appliesequally to socio-ethnic minorities and the handicapped. The validity of theseassumptions must be reviewed in the light of current knowledge of sociologicaltheory, decision making processes, and the outcome of similar mandates forintegration of socio-ethnic minorities.

The Handicapped Childas a Minority Group Member

The discussion above deals with the legal and legislative precedents forplacement in the Least Restrictive Environment. It can be seen that the legalprecedents are based primarily on the assumption that the minority groups.especially racial minorities, are inherently equal to the majority population inschool-related characteristics and that separation for ellucational purposes isstigmatizing to them and thwarts them in their attempt to fulfill their potential.However, extending this principle to the handicapped poses some real problems.Handicapped children are a minority, or perhaps several minority groups. Theydeviate from this norms of society in many different ways. (See Goffman, 1963.for further explication.)

For purposes of discussion in this section, let us differentiate between theconcepts of "disability" and "handicap." A disability is art apparent physical orbehavioral deviation from normal, It is, at least theoretically, observable andmeasurable. One can, for example, measure the degree of hearing loss throughstandard audiometric tests; the degree of visual impairment through optometricexaminations; and the dogme of mental retardation through standardized..intelligence tests and adaptive behavior scales. Somewhat less clearly, it ispossible to measure the degree and type of emotional disturbance, using eitherprojective techniques or behavioral objectives. The categories' of disablingconditions are roughly contained in the federal or various state lists of eligibilitycharacteristics for children in Special Education.

A handicap is not as easy to quantify since it results from the interaction of adisability or overt difference from the norm with society's expectations for

adaptive behaviors 'in such areas as commOnicstion, locomotion, socialization,Stoupation, and self-direction (Vineland Social Maturity Scale, Doll, 1965).Society unconsciously and collectively places value on certain behaviors anddegrades others. These values, which are culturally determined, are generally notarticulated except when they are violated. For example, society values theability to speak well and clearly in the prevalent dialect (e.g., standard English).However, some accents are culturally determined to be acceptable and some aredeemed unacceptable. An English (British) accent is usually considered "highdoss," a French accent is considered vatiosgly to be "cosmopolitan," "cute," or"sexy." However, a MexicanAmerican accent or a southern black dialect areusually considered "low class" or "uncultured." Thus, some people have spentmuch time and effort, largely unsuccessfully, trying to have black English taughtin schools, and trying to convince people of the respectability of the blackdialect. No such justification is necessary for the British dialect! Another valueof society, also unarticulated unless violated, is the ability to dress appropriatelyin accordance with expectations for age, sex, and social situation. Others includethe ability to display the proper emotions at the proper time, the ability to dealappropriately with bodily functions (e.g., to be toilet trained, not to masturbatein public, not to drool) and the abilitjr to do adequate or above average work inschool or in a vocational situation.

Handicapped children differ from racial, religious, or cultural minorities in twoimportant ways, civet, handicapped' children are usually not born intohandicapped families. With certain exceptions, such as genetic deafness andperhaps "cultural-familial" retardation, handicapped childrenare born to parentswho are phenotypically normal and who did not bargain for or anticipate havinga deviant child. Thus the children are stigmatized to their families as well as tosociety. Second, handicapped children are by reason of their disability trulyhandicapped, While .they can be taught, to some extent, to circumvent theirdisabilities, or to use prosthetic aids to learning, they cannot be totally"unhandicapped" merely by placement in proximity to normal peers. In fact,except for those with short-term problems, it is unlikely that any educationaltechnique will totally "cure" the disability and thus remove the handicapsassociated with it,

Compensatory Education Environment (CEE)

The legal and legislative mandates for special education for handicapped childrenand the voluminous literature on the optimum nature of that education have acommon, unarticulated underlying philosophy. That is, that handicappedchildren were created inherently unequal to the normative group in some set ofimportant physical or mental characteristics and that as a result of tfilsinequality, they and their families are entitled to unequal treatment under the

The philosophical basis for this unequal treatment is perhaps more Marxist thanJeffersonian Democratic. Democracy espouses at least to equaltreatment for alt under the law:"All men are created equal." Given this equaltreatment, some people wilt succeed more than others, and the results,theoretically, should be a hierarchy of individuals determined by merit. A basictenet of Marxism is that men are created unequal and that treatment should beindividualized so that the end result is as near equality as it is possible to achieve."From eachaccording to his ability to each according to his need."

Mandates for special education universally dictate that the education providedbe more extensive (free schooling and related services provided for more yecsthan that offered to normal children) and more intensive (generally in the formof lower teacherpupil ratios and the provision of ancillary services). The netresult of these mandates is an attempt to compensate the child, and perhaps hisfamily and society at large, for the presence of a handicapping condition. Theeducation and related services provided to the chld thus are more extensive andmore expensive to society because of society's litempt to compensate for ththandicapping condition. Furthermore, a handicapped child does indeed deviatenegatively from the norm and is in need of the special services. In practice, itusually works out that the more severely handicapped a child is.considered bysociety the more extensive and the more expensive are the services provided tohim. Thus, in the state of Washington, for example, along the continuum ofmental retardation, mildly retarded children are served St a self-containedteacher/pupil ratio of 13 to 1 moderately retarded children at 10 to 1, severelyand profoundly retarded children at 8 to 1, and multiple handicapped childrenat 6 to 1. It is important to note that these ratios and probably those implicit orexplicit in the other states were not at all empirically determined: they arelargely the result of agreement among concerned groups on the relative severityof the various disabilities. in the state of Washington, for example, ranking byteacher/pupil ratio gives the following order of supposed degree of handicap.

u4I

Most Handicapprkd Multiple Handicapped 6 to 1Blind 6 to 1Hearing Impaired 6 to 1Severely and Profoundly Retarded 8 to 1Neurological Impairment 8 to 1Moderately Retarded 10 to 1Behavior Disability 10 to 1Partially Sighted 12 to 1Mentally Retarded 13 to 1Learning Disabled 15 to 1

(Chapter 392-171 WAC July, 1973, p. 91

The concept thus can be established that special educational service provisionsentails at least in part the provision of a Compensatory Educational

39 1

Environment (CEE). The degree of compensation is roughly equivalent to theperceived magnitude of the handicaps imposed. The implicit purpose of the CEEis to bring the handicapped child to parity with his nornial peerr throughextraordinary educational service provision.

Cll. IMPLEMENTING THE LRE PROVISION INSELFCONTAINED FACILITIES

Definitions

In this section, we discuss the problems and issues surrounding placement ofhandicapped. children in self-contained facilities. For purposes of this discussionwe will define the terms institution, residential school, and special day School,and further sub-categorize within these basic groups, since the LAE justificationsfor each group are dissimilar.

An institution is defined as a residential facility where handicapped chitiren areplaced primarily tó receive shelter and custodial care. While education foreligible children in institutions is mandated, the educational program cannot beviewed as the primary purpose of the facility. In an institution, clients remain inthe facility even though the school session is not in progress (e.g., over summervacation and holidays). An insitution may be either publicly or privately run;and if privately run it may be either sectarian or non-sectarian, non-profit, orproprietary. Institutions may accept clients younger than or older than themandated educational, years.

A residential school is defined as a place where handicapped students come toreceive an education. At least some of the students attending the school programboard at the school during the term, but allgo home when school is recessed forlong periods. Some residential schools are "5 day only" facilities, where alestudents are returned home each weekend. Residential schools may be public,private. sectarian, or non-sectarian. Most residential schools accept as day pupilsgudents who live in the surrotattling community.

A special for school is an administratively and geographically separate schoolbuilding or buildings where handicapped children receive, an education. Pupilscommute to and from school on foot, by bus, or IA public transit. A special dayschool has its own building principal and administrative staff, and is not locatedon or adjacent to the campus of a school serving normal children. Gerierally'suchschools are located in urban or suburban areas with a large population base.They may serve one kind of exceptional child or more than one type.

CI 4°

Plicenynt in Self-Containid Fedi Mies

1.*

Traditionally, handicapped children have been placed in selfAxinteined facilitiesfor carious reasons. Placement in institutions has generally been limited to thoseitdividuals for whom custodial care has been mandated that is, adjudicatedyoungsters and to those for whom medical or custodial care was deemed -necessary (e.g., mentally retarded and emotionally disturbed children). Recenttrends have been . toward deinstitutionalizing the less severely disabled andplacing them in community based facilities. Placement in a public or privateinstitutiqe may be fOrced by a legal decision or may be by parental choice,including parental waiver of guardianship to the state.

Placement itiresidential schools may occur as a remit of many factors. In ruralor emote areas there mey not be a sufficient number of children with similarneeds to provide an appropriate educational program. The one hearing impairedchild in a 2,000 square mile area, if not eicandidate for complete mainstreaming,cannot receive the education he needs without boarding in a community wherethere is a program for the hearing impaired. Children with low-incidencehandicapping,conditions, such as deafness and blindness, have traditionally beenserved in residential schools. In 1977, for example, 43 states and the District ofColumbia are listed as having at least one public residential school for the deaf.Most have a similar program for the blind, some in combination with the schoolfor the deaf (e.g., Alabama Institute for Deaf and Blind in Talladega, Allibama).*(American Annals of the Deaf, April, 19771)

It is noteworthy here that some states have made a determined, air successful,effort to provide an alternative to a self-contained residential facility forlow-incidence populations. Wyoming, for example, because of its large area andrelatively small population, serves its hearing impaired children in a centralizedfacility located in Casper. A total of 61 piipils are served (1977). They comefrom all parts of the state. Yet, the Wyoming School For The Deaf is a dayschool. About ten years ago, the residential component was shut, and studentswere found foster placements in the local community, returning to their realfamilies whenever school is not in session.

Students may also be placed In residential schools because of the reputation ofindividual schools or tradition.'In Massachusetts, for example, Clark School forthe Deaf for over 100 years has served as a private, almost "Ivy League" schoolfor the deaf. One hundred and sixty-two of its two hundred students (AmericanAnne's of she Deaf, 1977) board at school, even though many of them couldeasily commute, or attend school in their home towns and cities, or beaccommodated in community foster homes.

Parents often prefer to sand their children to a residential school rather than totheir local program. Thus, even though Seattle. for example, has a well

41 41

developed comprehensive program for the deaf, a parent residing in Seattle mayelect to send his child to the Washington State School in Vancouver almost200 miles away. Most costs for room and board (as well as education) are paidby the state.

Placement in special day schools may occur because of parental preference.school district option, or school district policy. Parents may elect to send theirchild to a private school in order for the child to receive a more appropriateeducation, or for reasons of religious or methodological preference. Many privateschools have been started because parents were dissatisfied with the educationaland related services offered (or not offered) by their local school districts. Theseprivate schools served a very real need in providing alternatives to impropereducation or, in the days before mandation, to no edycation at all. Now, theneed tor such schools may be greatly reduced since the parent has the right tohelp determine the child's educational program and can employ due process toensure the child receives a free appropriate public education. However.educational institutions, once established, are difficult to modify or eliminate.Some private schools the Frostig School in Los Angeles) were developedaround the use of a particular methodology or were founded by a particularexpert in the area. These schools too have their devotees who would fight againstother placement for the children. Many of the schools so started used to be atthe forefront of special education, before the public sector became involved inhelping handicapped children. Many still are; but others have stopped growinglong ago, content to employ, reemploy, and justify the techniques and expertisethat .got them started, and relatively oblivious to the march of progress innewtechniques and materials for the handicapped.

The Self-ContainedCriteria Fax Its Use As An IRE

The concept of a self-contained facility (institution, day school, or residentialschool) as the least restrictive environment for a handicapped child is extremelydifficult. If least restrictive environment is defined as maximum opportunity forinteraction with and/or education with normal peers. then place mint in aself-contained facility is. by definition, placement in the most restrictiveenvironment (MRE). There can be no greater restriction placed on a handi-capped child in terms of interaction with normal peers than placement in ageographically and administratively separate school program. Equally restrictiveis education at home or in a hospital on a oneto-one basis. These placementoptions are equal to placement in a self-contained facility, as far as opportunityfor interaction with normal peers is concerned.

42

i"1"am.

Inetitutions.The authors believe that institutions may, under some special conditiOns, be theIRE as well as Vte MRE for some children.The IRE -MRE paradigm occurs onlywhen the need for custodial or medical care is so overriding that it would beunsafe for the child and/or for society to remove the child from his protectiveenvironment.

Proposed Criterion No. 1.A totally self-contained institutional educational program may be the IRE for agiven child if, and only if, in the opinion of legal and/or medical professionals,the child so placed would be harmed or society would be harmed by his removalfrom the protective institutional environment on a regular basis.

Criterion 1 does not say or imply that parer:lel preference for institutionalplacement is a reason for considering that placement as an IRE. Thus, if parentsare unable to or unwilling to care for their handicapped child in the home, avariety of community based placement options such as group homes, fosterhomes, and half-way houses should be available along with educationalplacement options in the public school system.

Residential or Specie! Day Schools.If a child attends a special school and is fit to travel to and from that schoolwhen it is not in session, the authors believe that placement in a self-containedfacility does not fit the LRE4IRE paradigm. In other words, if the child has totravel to a self-contained school and is fit enough to do so, there are few, if any.intrinsic reasons why the child cannot equally well travel to a location which willpermit some degree of interaction IA .th, or at least proximity to, normalchildren.

Proposed Criterion No. 2.If a day or residential school does not provide the opportunity for systematicinteraction with and proximity to normal peers, it is not the IRE possible forany handicapped child.

While parents of course have the option of removing their children from thepublic school system and placing them in alternative programs, school districts,should not contract with totally self-contained facilities to provide educationalservices to handicapped children since they violate the IRE provision of 94-142.

Lessening Restrictiveness

The only way in which a self-contained environment can be made less restrictiveis by making it less self-contained.

43

The list below is designed to offer ways, to make a self-contained program lessself-contained. It is not intended to be either exhaustive or restricting.

Provision for Extracurricular Integration.Most residential and some day schools provide a schedule of extracurricularactivities for their students. These activities include intramural sports,membership in clubs such at the Boy Scouts or Campfire Girls, religiousinstruction and participation, and hobby clubs in such activities as art, drama,and music. These activities provide a fruitful area for integration since it is likelythat counterparts exist for normal children in the surrounding community.However, while integration for these activities is a step forward, it. does notreflect the letter of the law regarding the least restrictive educationalenvironment.

Proposed Criterion No 3.To be considered an IRE, each facility must provide for non-academic or,academic integration. Handicapped children may be bused out or norpralchildren bused in for parts of the school day or for a certain period each week toparticipate together in either non-academic (P.E music, art, recesclunch) oracademic activities. While not as convenient as having handicappedchildren learnin the same environment as normal children, this methoikbf achieving a lessrestrictive environment does have the advantage ot-permitting exceptionalchildren use of physical facilities which were perhaps designed especially forthem (e.g., schools with physical and occupatidnal therapy equipment, schoolswith special adaptations for the blind). -while still allowing some degree ofcontact with normal peers.

Proposed Criterion No. 4.

Environments accomrnoditing children who are bused in and out must beassessed in termsf their suitability in making physical accommodations tochildren who are(

1) phytically handicappediiisually impaired

3) having impaired

Proposfid ,Criterion No. 5.Environments accommodating children who are bused in and out must beassessed in terms of their suitability in making educational/socialaccommodations to children by providing:

44

1) education of regular administrators concerning the nature and needs ofhandicapped children as well as relevant laws

2) education of regular teaching staff concerning the nature and needs ofhandicapped children

3) education of normal peers concerning the nature and needi of theirhandicapped peers

4) support services to teachers in providing necessary services to handicappedchildren

5) support services to peers in understanding and interacting with theirhandicapped peers

6) support services to adiriinistrators in providing necessary and mandatedservices to handicapped children

7) support services to classified staff in their interactions with handicappedchildren and in providing services to children and families

8) education of parents of normal peers in the nature and needs of handicappedchildren

9) education of parents of handicapped children in promoting their children'sdevelopment and in gaining access to necessary services for their children.

Proposed Criterion No. 6.Formulas for support services should be developed for each child. (Fiscalsupport per child is not diminished due to IRE placement.)

Formulas for support services must be developed for the:a. blindb. hearing impairedc. physically handicappedd. LD-ED. EMRe. SNIR

A special subcategory of integration is integration of older students forpre-vocational and vocational preparation. It is highly unlikely that any self-contained school for handicapped children can contain the full range ofprevocational and vocational opportunities present in most large comprehensivehigh schools. The past tendency has been to prepare handicapped children inresidential schools for those occupations for which the materials and tools couldbe found on campus. Thus, leaf males in residential schools, if they were notcollege bound (to Gallaudet College) were usually trained on-campus in thetraditional occupations for deaf people: printer, cabinet maker, upholsterer, drycleaner, or baker. Deaf females were equally traditionally given training in powersewing or homemaking, and more recently in general office work and keypunchoperation. Thus, the octruPational choices of the adult deaf were limited notsomuch by their handicaps as by the limited courses available to them at school.

45

Proposed Criterion No. 7.Older Students should be given the opportunity and the support necessary toavail themselves of the vocational training opportunities in regular schools.Without this, both the spirit of P.t... 94.142 and the letter of Sec. 504 wi,1 beimpossible to obey.

IV. IMPLEMENTING THE LRE PROVISIONWITHIN AN LEA: PROPOSED CRITERIA

If the spirit of the IRE mandate is to be met in a local school district, certainpsychological conditions must pervade the administrators, teachers, parents andstudents in that school district. These involve attitudes toward handicappedchildren and commitments to integrating them in the schools.

Proposed Criterion No. 8.If 3 given handicapped child can possibly attend a regular class or interact withnormal peers, and this is prescribed as part of an IEP, the school he attendsshould be equipped physically, and the school personnel should be preparedPricho logically, to receive the child and to maximize his chances for success.

Proposed Criterion No 9As many schools as possible within a school district should be so equipped, so asto improve the chances a handicapped child has of being able to attend hisneighborhood school with success, and the school districts' chances of meetingthe spirit of LRE.

Placement Options

The LEA administrator attempting to implement LRE provisions must keep inmind considerations that differ from present educational mactice. Optionsmustbe available that provide different degrees of restrictiveness.

Propond Criterion No. 10.Options must be arranged to comply with the provisions of 504 that make thehandicapped student's neighborhood school the first option unless that school isproven to be incapable of providing an appropriate program. It is clearly allege:to pleat a handicapped child before the initial IEP has been negotiated with thestudent and his parents or guardian.

Proposed Criterion No. 11.A handicapped child who is new to a district should be placed in a diagnosticclassroom until his or her IEP is developed. The child must not be excludedduring the development period, which can last from four to six weeks.

46 46

Propos", Criterion No 12.A full range of options should be available in any school district to enable eachchild to be educated with normal peers and interact with them to the maximumextant possible. The range should include:

1. Special class placement. Tb.i child's primary assignment is to a self-containedclassroom. He or she may be integrated for part of the day for academicand/or non-academic subjects or may interact with normal peers only duringsuch activities as recess, P.E., and lunch.

2. Resource room placement: The child's primary assignment is to a regularclass. She or he leaves this class for a variable period of timeto receive extrahelp in academic or non-academic areas.

3. Itinerant services placement: The child is placed in a regular class but leavesthe class for instruction ten a 1-to1 or small group basis by a teacher or bysupport services personnel such as Communication Disorders Specialists,Physical or Occupational Therapists, or counselors.

4. In.class services placemen The child remains in regular class placement allday but receives extra help through tutors, attendants, interpreters, orteacher aides who are present in the regular class and play a support role tothe student and/or the teacher.

5. Services to teacher placement: The child is placed in a regular class all dayand receives no direct extra assistance. However, the teacher has availablehelp with academic programming, behavioral techniques, and specialmaterials to ensure the child's success in the classroom.

In the following sections we outline criteria for the physical, educational, andsocial accommodations necessary to maximize success in an LAE placement focmildly handicapped children, hearing impaired children, and severelybehaviorally disordered children.

Accommodating the Mildly Handicapped (EMR, ID, BD)

Mildly handicapped students are those with academic deficits (educable mentallyretarded, learning disabled), defects in adaptive behavior, (behavior disability,educable mentally retarded), and general subaverage functioning that will requirespecial education services.

Lowenbraun and AM.& 09761 describe in detail the provisions necessary forintegrating mildly handicapped students into the regular elementary classroom.The following criteria summarize these provisions.

Pre **six, Criterion No. /3.A pr .ise educationally relevant diagnosP'should te made that pinpoints thechild's levels of achievement.

47

Proposed Criterion No. 14.On the basis of this diagnosis, an individually prescribed instructional planshould be made.

Proposed Criterion No. 15.

During all educational procedures, continuous child' erformance data should bekept, thereby allowing the teacher to precisely monitor the success or failure ofthe educational strategies used.

Proposed Criterion No. 16.The regular classroom teacher has a right to expect special education resourcesto follow the eligible handicapped child.

Proposed Criterion No. 17.Special education itinerant teachers should have carefully specified jobdescriptions and daily schedules that are available to the regular teacher who has;iandicapped students in his or her classroom.

Proposed Criterion No. 18.Regular education personnel should receive further training in assessment skills,individualization of instruction, individualization of curricuium. data keepingand educational decision making, preparing teaching sequences, and behaviormanagement skills.

Proposed Criterion No. 19.Modification of the physical setup of the classroom should be performed inorder to provide more systematic teaching.

Proposed Criterion No. 20.The role of the teacher should change to that of an instructional manager who isresponsible for the coordination of one or more professionals orparaprofessionals in his classroom.

The regular class teacher who includes handicapped children in his classroommay also need to develop new *kills in relating to parents. Many parents ofhandicapped children will exper thi ugh the IEP process to have a much morecollaborative relationship with te. ".'..rs than parents or teachers have previouslyexpected. The regular teacher will need to have a working knowledge of the IEPand IRE components of the law. This may affect the teacher's interactions withthe parents of normal students, many of whom can be countedon to expect theSame level of cooperatich, and collaboration regarding their childreh's education.The regular class teacher will have to educate these parents about thecompensatory needs of hanbicaPped students without alienating them or theirchildren if the least restrictive environment provisions can be educationallysuccessful for all.

48

Integrating mildly handicapped students into the secondary mainstream appearsto be a much more difficult prospect, though the. courts have ruled againstability grouping (Hobson vs. Hanson), Kenneth Clark recently ob .erved that thispractice is still widespread in the nation's secondary schools. As long as there isability grouping, there is little likelihood of educating mildly handicappedstudents with their normal or gifted peers.

Unfortunately, indusion in extracurricular activities is usually predicated on theprevious mastery of skills in which the mildly handicapped student is deficient.One must be able to read music to be in the school band, and able to read ascript to be in the high school play. Lacking these skills only confirms thefeelings of rejection and unworthiness that so many mildly handicapped studentsfeel in secondary programs.

Clark has maintained that America's secondary schools are undemocraticinstitutions that thwart the social mobility aspirations of minorities. This is alsotrue to a great degree for many mildly handicapped students.

What is needed is a reevaluation of the role of secondary schools and a changefrom competitive teaching to a more individualized approach that permits eachstudent to develop in terms of his own needs and abilities.

One of the first crucial areas where such change is needed is vocationaleducation. Many mildly handicapped students are excluded from these programsbecause of inappropriate and irrelevant academic entrance standards. Moreover,the attitudes of present personnel frequently are unnecessarily overprotectiveregarding the safety of mildly handicapped students. Retraining of presentvocational education personnel in special education could perhaps assist inmaking secondary programs more viable for the mildly handicapped.

Accommodating the Hearing Impaired:Physical and Educational/Social Accommodations

In order to maximize the chances of hearing impaired children's succeeding inintegrated or pmtialli ,integrated situations the following guidelines arepresented. They serve as criteria for evaluating the suitability of the integratedenvironment within a given school building. Note that these criteria do notmention the quality of education received in the self-contained portion of theschool day. It is assumed that high quality one-to-one or small group instructionbased on the child's IEP and the best practices known will be employed duringthat period.

Proposed Criterion No. 21.integrated classrooms should be sound treated, with consultation by qualified

494D

audiologists to minimize ambient noise levels and sound reverberations fromwant and floors. Usually, carpeting. acoustic treatment of the ceiling, and noisereducing wall treatments are used.

Proposed Criterion No. 22.Special care should be taken to test hard-of-hearing children's functional use ofhearing in the integrated classroom. Some children who function wellauditorily in simple acoustical environments cannot fir' so in the more complexenvironment in a regular class.

Proposed Criterion No. 23.A system of visual warnings for emergencies, eg blinking or strobe lights, isnecessary whenever hearing impaired children or staff are present. Such a systemis usually easy to add to existing alarm systems.

No of .er special physical accommodations are needed, although it is necessaryto provide adequate lighting for ease of visual communication.

Proposed Criterion No. 24,Education of school administrators and teaching staff is basic to the success ofhearing impaired children. The following topics should be covered;

1. The nature of hearing impairment2. The language of hearing impaired childrena What a hearing aid is and what it can and cannot do4. Troubleshooting a hearing aid (for teachers of younger children)5. Elementary manual communication of the form of any) used by the child6. How to use an interpreter7. Deaf persons' speech patterns and simple correction and habituation

techniques8. Conditions for maximizing speech readability.

Proposed Criterion No. 25.Education of normal peers is also basic. It should include:

1. A basic social studies curriculum strand on the acceptance of differencecaused by handicapping conditions (as well as racial, religious, ethnic, andsexual differences).

2. Elementary sign language or other visual communication system (if this isused by the hearing impaired students).

3. Methods of communicating with the hearirrg impaired.4. Basic information about the nature. causes, and consequences of hearing loss.

50 50

4

Pl Wiled Criterion No. 26.Support services must be available to teachers and their hearing impaired pupils. /These mutt include:

1. A ..curriculum and instruction person expert in educating the hearingimpaired, to assist in programming.

2. A *rained teacher of the deaf, to assist in instruction and to provide extratuition when needed. (This is different and distinct from the role of theteacher of the deaf who works in a selfcontained room and teaches materialdifferently, though perhaps complementary, to what is learned in the regularclass.

3. ,A communication disorders specialist With specific training in teaching speechand language to deaf children.

4. An audiologist. to provide regular assessment of the child'sauditory ability inthe classroom; to suggest ways of helping the child use audition moreeffectivelN to provide for hearing aid and amplification equipment repair;and to make earmolds, etc.

S. An interpreter. For children who, as empirically determined, do better usingtotal communication rather than oral onNi for input, or whose speech is notreadily understandable, an interpreter should be provided. The interpretershould be fluent in the form of manual communication used by the child andin reverse interpreting (from manual language and the child's speech tostancard English). Interpreters should be bound by a code of ethics such asthat employed by the Registery of Interpreters for the Deaf.

Proposed Criterion No 27.In any school where there are hearing impaired children, both the hearingimpaired children's parents and the parents of normal students should receiveeducation about the needs of the hearing impaired population andencouragement to work together on common goals.

Accommodating the Severely Behavior Disordered

The PopulationIn order to establish guidelines for determining the least restrictive environment(IRE) for severely behavior disordered (SSD) children, it is necessary to try toidentify the specific characteristics that d;stinguish these children from others.This is especially difficult because there are few specific known etiologies orbehavior patterns that reliably identify SW children. P.L. 94-142 defines asevere behavior disorder as "a condition exhibiting one or more of the followingcharecteristics, over a long period of time and to a marked degree, whichadversely affected educational performance." The characteristics are:

1. Inability to learn, which cannot be explained by intellectual, sensory, orhealth factors.

51

2. Inability to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships withpeers and teachers.

3. Inappropriate types of behavios or feeli under ridritial circumstanees4. A general pervasive mood of unhappiness or, sion; or,5. A tendency to develop physical symptoms or featA associated with personals

or school problems.

Such a definition could include children who Alight carry labels such as thefollowing: autistic, childhood schizophrenic, schizophrenic, neurotic, psychotic,pathological, juvenile delinquent, conduct disordered. shy, or withdrawn. Moreoften than not, the label or the distinguishing feature cited reflects the trainingand theoretical viewpoint bf the classifier, rather than the behavior pattern ofthe child at the time. Since the IRE concept requires more than just aphilosophical commitment to "contact with normal children," it is necessary todescribe what factors actually restrict the environment of these children.

Restrictive Factors.Kenowiti, Zweibel, and Edgar suggest four areas to consider in evaluating anIRE for severely/profoundly handicapped children. The four Sreas are classroomtype, internal freedom of site, educational programming, and opportunity forinteraction with normal children. Historically. SBD children have been excludedfrom schools. It..is only in the 'last decade that there has been a generalagreement that schools were even partially responsible for the edslcation of thesechildren. But there is no agreement about the obligations and responsibilities ofsuch a role. In delineating the possible restricting factors foi a SBD child, we willdiscuss ways to rt..::..re or eliminate these restrictions. There is, of course, aconsiderable overlap bcween these restrictions and those affecting children withother handicaps.

Settings.SSD children could be placed in several settings such as special schools,self-contained classrooms, and well staffed resource rooms, It would beinfeasible and impractical to fund a program for one child. Many districts, even-when they form consortiums. often must place SSD children in residentialsettings. Sometimes SSD children do not have "normal" home situations.Frequently they are wards of the state, or have been removed from their homesby their parents for various reasons. Foster care or goup homes are oftendifficult to find. In these cases, institutions or residential settings are the onlyremaining alternatives.

Proposad Criterion No. 28.In the case of institutional or residential placement for SSD children,educational concerns and educational placement must be dealt with separatelyfrom the purely custodial concerns. In many cases the living and educational

52 52

requirements are combined within the residential setting. offering the child aMore restrictive environment rather than giving him the chance for contact withnormal students in a school setting.

Internal Freedom.When a SBQ child is placed in a school setting, the internal freedomrestriction from physical barriers in the classroom is not a concern except inthe rare case of a SBD child with a secondary severe physical handicap.

Proposed Criterion No. 29.Classroom and school location and safety are concerns that must be addressed inplanning for SQD children. Many SBD children exhibit wandering and runawaybehaviors, and what the child may encipunter when he runs away should be keptin mind. Locations in high density population and traffic areas, in isolated areas,near water, cliffs, or woods, could be hazards to the child. Schools in theselocations should not be ruled out, but a plan of prevention must -beimplemented. Routes available to the child and objects that could cause harmshould be noted in the classroom, and a procedure to prevent a child fromwandering should be planned and implemented.

Programming.The best educational program will fail if the school does not deal with both theprogram of each SSD child and the psychological barriers that may prevent theimplementation of these programs.

Proposed Criterion No. 3aFor a child's (EP to be successful, the staff must be able to assess and programfor a variety of individual behaviors. Further, the expectations and values of theschool staff it\ ust be critically evaluated, and in many cases changed.

The inclusion of SBD childten in the public school will cause many problems,some concerned with the morale and habits of the professionals in the schoolcommunity. Failure to consider these may render a well planned educationalprogram ineffective.

Proposed Criterion No. 37.It is essential to have an effectively planned educational program Vor the childand a realistically based inservice program for the whole school community for aSBD child to succeed in his least restrictive environment.

Proposed Criterion No. 32.With such an educational program, more manpower is needed: to assess thechild, plan and run programs, collect and graph data, and mike program changes.

. Although a secondary goal of every prove% is to increase the self-managementskills of the child and to move to small group instruction, which will cut back

iJ

*

some personnel, in any type of edgcational program with SBD children moremanpower is needed.0ften it is difficult to find extra personnel. A partial list ofpossible resources that can be used includes paraprofessionals, sociologists, socialsirvice agencies, peer tutors, cross-age tutors, parents Of the children,community volunteers, community mental health centers, people and resourcesfrom community organizations (Kiwanis, Eagles, Lions), community centers, 'local merchants, senior citizens, and sttibent: from local colleges, univtrsities,and high schools. Paying the salaries needed for some of these resourcei is a gooduse of P.L. 94.142 funds.

Manpower not included above is the professional staff that is employed byschool districts' to cover the language, physical education, health. andOsythiatricipsychological needs of the SBD child and classmates.

Potential ProblemsOften, the-severely behavior disordered child's greatest impact is on the mentalhealth of the staff interacting with the 'child. SBD children tend to exacerbatethe 'psychological problems of a staff: the behaviors emitted often makeprofessionals vulnerable and titre of themselves. This vulnerability, itn tarnincreases the stress fe:t from other problems.

Proposed Criterion No. 33Inservice must be provides; to give a staff specific, skills that will prepare them tobe able to respond to 5130 children. Only through practical experience with SSDchildren can individuals learn to effectively teach this population. Such trainingwill have to increase the staff's acceptance of differences, and their ability tomaintain their mental health while deaiing effectively with negative andthreatening behaviors.

A second problem for a teacher educating SBD children in the least restrictiveenvironment is the increased number of necessary contacts with other people.There are meetings with specialists, parents, other staff, Even if all of thesemeetings go well, they are an energy drain.

Proposed Criterion No. 34. .

School administrations will have to be sensitive to staff energy problems andplan activities to alleviate or lessen the negative impact of extensiveenergy-draining interactions.

A,prolalem arises in defining SBD children because no one etiology nor specificbehavior patterns are known to 'nattily the child. No matter what specific lakelthe child is given, t, least restrictive environment must be found for the S90population. Reviewing the fattors necessary for a successful placement,classroom type can be a special school, self-contained classroom, or well staffed

a

resource room. As noted earlier, a SBD child, either'in a home or institutionalsetting, must have his educational opportunities in a school setting, not in themore restrictive environment of an institutional setting.

.1)

Within the school setting the internal freedom is only a problem for SBDchildren with wandering and runaway behaviors. As noted earlier, a plan toprevent a 'Child from wandering can' be implemented in order to reduce thestaffs Concern about danger. Such a plan can make most sites accessible to SBDchildren.

Proposed Criterion No. 36.When the SBD child is placed in an appropriate setting, his educational programshould include direct and ongoing assessment; individualized programs inPrescadernics, academics, and social interactions; a behavior modificationapproach to instruction; and daily data collection. This educational programcalls for more ma power, which is readily available in most communities and canbe fundei by P.t. 94.142. This 'ideal" educational program, however, cannotbe implemented without the direct support of the professionals in the schoolcommunity. SBD children, more than any other handicapped Popuktion, testand may break the educational system because of the' unique ability to maketrained professionals fee: unsure of themselves and, therefore, vulnerable. Mostprofessionals have been trained in similarities and a SBD child will not fit into aneatly categorized box. To help staff accept and understand differences inindividuals and the uniqueness of a SBD child, workshops funded through P.L.94.142 can supply the direct 4nds-on experience that is needed.

With our proposed setting and factors that ate needed for a successful leastrestrictive environment, a.SBD child will gain the opportunity for many normclPeer interactions. Through the shared responsibility by all the school staff, aleast restrictive environment can be successfully implemented.

V. PROCESSES FOR DETERMINING LRE

Introductiort

The concept " of LRE presents unique and far reaching problems andopportunities for local educational systems. It is clear from the precedingdiscussion that there is much more involved in the LRE movement than simplyprogram Modifications. The attitudes, policies, practices, and structures of alleducation become grist for the mill of change generated by the movz:ment. Theimpact and extent of change that may result from implementing the spirit ofIRE is not known, but can be anticipated to be great.

Before a comprehensive program (one that meets the spirit of the least restrictiveconcept) can be fully implemented, many touchy issues will need to be faced

56r-

and resolved. Hovi far can a school and its staff be expected to bend in ordertoaccommodate any handicapped child? How will handicapped students be gradedin regular elementary and secondary Programs? How are handicepPedstudentsto be supported in order to fully benefit from the program/ Haw will theattitudes of regular staff and students be handled to- assure acceptance ofdifferences? How many buildings will need to ba made accessible and to whatdegree? How do suspension and expulsion practices affect the LRE concept?How the funds neressary to meet the reqkirernents to be found, and willsecuring these funds be at the expense of the general education program? Theseare only examples of a myriad of similar critical areas in need of examinationand possible change.

The challenge for directors of special education at all levels urban, rural, large.and small is to create or devise systems for planning, implementing, andevaluating a special education delivery system that assures flexible options, manyprovided within the regular education setting.

In order to fulfill this challenge, it is necessary to have a conceptual frameworkfor delivering services comprehensively. Evelyn Deno (1968) developed a highlyeffective model for delivering special services which is consistent with the leastrestrictive alternative concept. Derio's model generates levels of services basedupon the severity of the handicapping condition. (See Figure 1.)

This model describes very generally the kinds of structural and administrativeoptions that are appropriate for differing levels of severity in handicaps. Themore severely handicapped children require more specialized environments whilechildren with the mild and moderate conditions can be served in conjunctionwith regular educational alternatives.

The tapered design of the model indicates that more students will be in theoptions for the less severely involved, while fewer children are receiving thehighly specialized vice options. Some important considerations for planningand implementing this model relate to severity; the more severe the children'shandicaps, the more likely that:

1. the program will cost more;2. more specialized personnel will be needed;3. continuous insert ice will be required;4. community and agency contacts will need to be broadened;5. facilities and equipment will be highly specialized;6. stigmata related to the handicaps will be more apparent;7. parent interest and involvement will be high;8. progress will be slow and difficult to document;9. the curriculum will be more special, and often not determined with precision;

10. the program will be administratively separate from regular education;

5656

Level

Level II

Level III

Level 1V

Level V

Level VI

Level vit

Level VIII

Children in regular classes, including those"handicapped" able to get along with regular

class accommodations with or Withoutmedical or counseling supportive therapy

Regular class attendance plussupplementary instructional "OUT-PATIENT"services

PROGRAMS

Part-time (Assignment ofspecial class pupils governed

by the schoolFull-time system)

special class

Special

station

Homebound

/7-Inst9.iction inhospital or

domiciled settings(Assignment ofchildren to facilities

"Noneducational" governed by healthservice (medical and or welfare agencies

"IN-PATIENT"PROGRAMS

welfare care and supervision)

FIGURE 1Educational aspects, of minimal brain dysfunction in children.Proceedings of the Siirftrilialaware Conference on theHandicapped Child. Wilmington, De.: A.I. Dupont. 1968,op, 41.M

57 5

11. funding will be heavily provided from state and federal sources;12. eligibility for the program will be easier to document; and13. community and legislative support will be easier to obtain for funding

purposes.

For children with the less severe handicaps, the following program conditions arelikely to exist:

1. personnel will need highly developed consultative and organizational skills;2. program costs will be shared with regular education;3. inservice training of regular education personnel will be necessary;4. there will be more administrative contact with regular administrators;5. there will be less consensus on eligibility and more conflict over

programming;6. union negotiations will increasingly include special education issues;7. there will be greater possibilities of power struggles between principals and

special education supervisory personnel:8. the need to have regular curriculum adapted will be great and controversial;

and9. the sharing of responsibility between reoular and specat education will be

controversial.

In addition to these general issues, each level of service also is characterized byits own uniqueness and requirements which affect resources, training, structure,and relationships within the school setting.*

From the above, it seems apparent that the shift from more restrictive to lessrestrictive settings will generate some classic resistance to change on the part ofboth special and regular educators. Both groups have much to gain and lose inthe transition from special education as a parallel administrative system tospecial education as an interacting part of a single system.

With this background on the forces and issues to be faced in moving toward theconcept of least restrictive environments, a more specific discussion on planningand organizing fze the delivery of service in LREs can be pursued.'

Planning for SpecializedEducational Services in the LRE

Tips first step in planning for the delivery of services in the public school is toclearly define the purpose and direction of the program. Only when everyone

Readers ;we referred to the Madison Program Document (SpecializedEducation!) Services) for a full description of each level and its uniquenenes.

5 858

knows what the common objectives are can the various actors work together toachieve the common purpose.

It is very important to involve all interested parties in arriving at the goals theywill pursue together. This includes both internal and external groups. Internally,districtwide decision and advisory groups should make time to deal with thedirection of the program. The chief policygroup which may have a variety ufnames, but is often characterized as the "superintendent's cabinet" is a key inlegitimizing the purpose. It is highly desirable for the. director of specialeducation to be a member of such a council or, at the very least, have readyaccess to the group. Other groups unique to the individual local district need tobe identified and consulted about program goals. At a minimum, additionalgroups should include parent groups (regular and special education), principals,and staff.

Once the important groups are identified, processes should be identified toProductively involve the groups in reaching consensus. A number of techniquesare available in the literature to help the implementers be effective with thecritical groups.

When this process is complete it is likely that a set of goals such as the followingwill be agreed on:

1. A comprehensive but flexible range of service options will be developed thatwill provide appropriate educational services to the full spectrum of childrenwith handicapping conditions. This spectrum should encompass all childrenwith handicapping conditions which range from severe through mild.

2. Systems of support to the regular or general educational programs will bedeveloped, designed to help staff teach and manage children with a broaderrange of individual differences, thereby preventing undue labeling andsegregation of children with handicapping conditions.

3. Closer working relationships will be developed with the community and itsagencies to prepare the community to receive and understand person* withhandicapping conditions. Efforts will also be made to coordinate schoolprograms with other community activities to insure the continuity ofeducation and development for the individual and to reduce unilateral andduplicative efforts.

4. Closer working relationships will be developed with parents of children withhandicapping conditions to insure that appropriate and meaningful servicesare pro ided to all students and parents, and that their concerns regardingLRE placement are realistically dealt with.

S. Evaluation mechanisms will be developed for describing and measuringpositive student change as the primary intended outcome of all seriiCeS.

The acceptance of such goals has important implications for planning and

59

development, Issues of impact will have to be addressed.

1. Movement toward a comprehensive range of service options will mean thatnew models of service delivery will have to be developed and evaluated.-

2. An expansion of services will be necessary since currently few systems areable to provide adequate service for all students with a wide variety ofhandicapping conditions.

3. Better mechanisms for assessment, communication, and planning between thespecial education and the regular system will need to b. developed to insureadequacy of programs in terms of quantity, continuity, and effectiveness.

4. The local district will have to work closely with the Department of PublicInstruction to insure approval of new service options which may not becurrently approvable.

5. New professional roles (such as consultant teacher, instuctional technclogist,and inservice training specialist) will have to be developed and tested.

6. Intensive staff development programs for special and regular staff will need tobe developed.

7. Better parent, agency, and community liaisons will have to be established.

The next step involves identifying a viable organizing and planning structure.Such a structure must be able to deal with regular school building options formildly handicapped students as well as district-wide options for the moreseverely handicapped.

Practically every public school system is organized into three basic levels highschools, middle or junior high schools, and elementary schools. Utilizing thisbasic structure allows for similar planning. formats to be adopted reeurdless ofthe size of the school district. A key to effective planning in large, medium, orsmall districts ie to identify logical clusters of schools that are large enough toprovide comprehensive services to most of the handicapped children and smallenough to allow for face-to-face communication and accountability.

The following area or school component is most likely applicable to any sizeschool district. The governing variable in this component is the high school. Theplanning unit at this le4el comprises a single high school plus all its feederschools.

A small schebi district may have only one high school, one middle or junior high zySChOOkaild two or three elementary schools. In extreme cases, particularly inrural areas, two or more school districts may need to work as one in order toapproximate this structure.

In larger districts, there may be several high schools and feeder patterns similarto the above component. Nonetheless, each such component may be used as abasis for the comprehensive delivery of services especially for the mild and

o80

HIGH SCHOOL

MIDDLE SCHOOLS

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

'FIGURE 2ARTICULATION UNIT

AREA OR DISTRICT CLUSTER

moderate conditions. Small districts may need to form one cooperative districtto provide services to the more severely handicapped pupils. Large districts maychoose to center services for these pupils in one or more of the above structuresthroughout the city or area,

The above component, while large enough for allowing a comprehensive array ofservice options to be provided mildly and moderately handicapped students,may be too large for some school districts. If this is the case, the next smalleststep would comprise a vertical cluster unit involving the high school, one middleor junior high school, and its feeder elementary school.

61

MIDDLE SCHOOL

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

FIGURE 3

This smaller structure is the most basic K-12 unit available and is very usefulwhere school populations are large or where resources are sufficient to support afull service model, This unit also is useful for assuring program continuity for achild from elementary grades through high school.

These planning structures are utilized for all services that are provided within theregular school buildings.

The Planning Process

The planning process should incorporate district-wide planning, vertical or areacluster planning, and individual school planning.

District-Wide Planning for Specialized ServicesDistrict-wide planning for special educational services is important and necessaryfor several reasons:

1. Thare are same handicapping conditions that are relatively rare (lowincidenc:.: and that require either highly specialized instructional technologyor facilities. The few numbers of children and the high cost of serving themrequire district-wide .planning and service. In many instances, the basic

P 01...0 4 62

program for the entire district will be conducted in one duster unit. Programsfor hearing impaired and orthopedically handicapped students are examples.Even in this paradigm, however, individual children should be regularlyconsidered for integration into neighborhood schools when their IEPwarrants such placement.

2. The scarcity of resources which prevents the development of the totalcomprehensive range of services in etch area also requires district-wideplanning. Under these conditions, a flexible transfer policy is crucial tomeeting the needs othandicapped students.

3. The planning for horizontal program development .Jiould occur district wideto assure balance and consistency (e.g., elementary curriculum and policyissues should be district-wide issues).

4. Priority setting, policy decisions, budgeting, and resource allocations mustoccur at the district level to assure consistent direction and the fairdistribution of resources.

To implement district-wide planning strategies, the broad based advisory groupsutilized by the district are crucial. The discussions on program issues are mostoften made at the superintendent's cabinet level for district-wide programs usingcitizen input.

Vertical Cluster PlanningThis unit promises to be the most efficient and effective structure for totalspecialized services planning. It is composed of representative schools from altlevels of the cluster. The schools are interdependent as a result of the flow ofstudents from elementary, to middle, through high school; they also sharecommon problems resulting from shred demographic factors.

For the unit to be maximally effective for planning purposes, it is crucial thattime be made available regularly for principals and building staff to meet andplan with the special education administrative staff. The amount of ti :le to bemade available would depend on a number of factors but a minimalrecommendation would be quarterly meetings for formal planning and reviewsessions; informal sessions might be held at any time to solve specific problems.

Areas of interest that might be considered by this unit in planning probablywould include:

1. working out with special education department needs assessment proceduresfor establishing services;

2. developing procedures for evaluation of personnel and service effectiveness;3. determining the specific functions to be played by the psychologists, social

workers, speech and language therapists, and other support staff assigned tothe cluster;

4. determining the way that cluster assigned personnel are to be used in the

63

individual buildings;S. planning for the continuity and articulation of programs for handicapped

children;6. developing local operational procedures for the multidisciplinary teams

operations; and7. clarifying ioint decision-making areas between the building principal and the

department.

The time for planning with a workable group which involves t rnrnunication and

consistency promises to help reduce the feeling of isolation of the principal,recognizes his role in shared decision Making and planning, and provides "grassroots" information to the special education department that is so necessary invalidating program development.

Individual School Planning.The planning occurring at the district-wide and the cluster levels should haverepresented input from all individual buildings, and consensus regardingpriorities and direction should guide the planning at the building level,

It is at the building level that the effectiveness of the larger planning efforts isde4rrnined. Only when issues such as staff supervision, program guidelines,procedures, communication flow, and other critical program issues are plannedon a larger basis than the individual class or school can a district hope to evade

the ever-present danger of constant crisis intervention.

Procedures for Planning

For planning to be effective between the basic planning structures the vertical

cluster and the special education department procedures have to be developed

that will facilitate the gathering and analysis of information to be used inplanning.

The individual schools comprising the vertical cluster will have to contributeimportant information to guide planning. This information might include:

1. unique building priorities, programs, or conditions:2. official referrals for service;3. teacher nominated problem areas;4. results of any formal screening or needs assessments;S. facilities data;6. special needs of an indirect service nature such as regular staff inservice; and7. relationships of special needs to overall program.

Similarly, the special education department will need to provide the followingkinds of information:

I 64

1. directional framework for services goals and objectives;2. specific data related to initiating, operating, and evaluating programs;3. criteria for program establishment;4. legal parameters;

5. resources available, possible, or needed; and6. catalogue of skills or competencies available to the unit.

With these types of data objectively collected and available for planningmeetings, it is expected that principals and special education coordinators orsupervisors will be in a bettei"position to negotiate a service delivery plan whichis mutually developed and supported. Such a plan likely would include suchelements as:

1. a descriptloi. of the range of services to be provided at the district andvertical cluster level;

2. a plan showing which buildings would house which programs;3. the support to be expected from all parties;4, a plan fortegrating special programs into the unique programs operating in

the builags;5, a description of an ongoing staff development or inservice program;6. delineation of the mutual responsibilities of principals and special supervisors;

and7, a plan for how the program is to be evaluated,

Obviously other elements are likely to be considered and included, but theimportant factor here is the cooperative planning mechanism that bringstogether all parties to produce a workable plan for serving handicapped childrenin the least restrictive alternative

Mutual Contracting for Servicescr)

in order that the planning process lead to specific mutually understood directionand actions, it is recommended that a systematic management process be utilizedthat will provide a record and an evaluation vehicle for progress toward mutuallydetermined objectives. This Service Delivery Plan or Contract should specifyimportant conditions such as:

1, clear statement of objectives;2.. personnel responsibilities (mutual);3. accountability for mutual actions;4. methods of evaluation and monitoring; and5. others.

65

The negotiated plan may be comprehensive or restricted, long term or shortterm, service oriented or task oriented; it may involve necessary, continuousfunctions or new, creative functions depending on the needs and priorities thathave been chterrnined and agreed upon.

A suggested format used in the Madison, Wisconsin Pup lie Schools is suggestedbelow. This has been adapted slightly from the MBO contract format and ispresented only as one suggested approach. Others may be more acceptable.

Contract or Plan Format

1. A precise description of the project, pmcess, or skill to be evaluated in thisagreement This should include (to the degree that is possible at the initialconference):1Intent of what is to be done, outcotresetC(Pected, procedures to be used,

orband specification of mutual Napo ilitiesa. Is item really a priority item is it only something easy to agree on?b. Can the outcomes be measured either objectively by some instrument or

assessed subjectively by one of the parties? Subjective opinion is a validassessment device but the parties involved should understand and agreeabout when subjective opinion will serve as the basis of evaluation. (Seealso No. 2).

c. Is this a short term or long term objective? When will it terminate?d. Can it /should it be classified, as regular, problem solving, or innovative?

Such classification may be helpful to both parties regarding the context ofthe agreement.

a. Has this item been reached by consensus or was it prescribed or insistedupon by one of the parties? Consensus should dominate except in unusualcases.

2. A specification of person(s) to do the monitoring and evaluation of No. 7. Adescription of exactly how this/these person/persons will monitor/evaluateNo. I (visitations, conferences, reports, other materials, etc.) and, to thedegree possible at the initial conference and agreed to by the individualsinmelved, what constitutes good. average. poor progress.a. Is the individual competent to do the monitoring/evaluating? If not, will a

third party be brought into the agreement?b. Does the individual have the time to do the procedures agreed to in the

evaluation/monitoring section? If any of the monitoring/evaluatingProcedures were left out (for whatever reason) would both parties stillbelieve that a valid evaluation had taken place? What procedures on thePart of tither party could not be left out without invalidating thecontract?

66 16

C. (See a in No. 1 above) Where subjective assessment is agreed to, whatconstitutes good, average, or poor progress according to the parties? Thisshould be understood as fully as possible by the parties involved.

d. ,ln some cases one may only be able to evaluate the actions involved ratherthan the actual outcome where actual outcome is elusive. The differencebetween actions and outcome should be understood.

3. A description of any materials, resources, other aids not readily aterilable butneeded to properly execute this agreement and who/how will see that his isprovided.a. If materials/resources/aids are necessary to the completion of the contract.

whu will get them and by what date?b. Are such materials, etc.. absolutely critical to the contract or are there

alternatives if for some reason it is subsequently determined that theagreed materials, etc., cannot be supplied?

c. When would the contract become invalid if the materials, etc., were notmade available?

4. Now often will the evaluator/evaluatee meet to officially review progress?(This meeting not to be confused with regular meetings held in the process ofevaluating.) Once a quarter is recommended.

a. Specific dates are a must for official review sessions. A specific day is bestwith "in the week of . ...being the most latitude allowable.'

b. A typed copy of the review session should be made available to bothparties. It should be a fair recording of what had taken Placequantitatively and qua ffatively to date. It is particularly important thatunderstanding and agreement be reached at the time of the official reviewsession and that the understanding/agreement be fairly and accuratelytranslated.

c. The importance and specific times of the official review sessions do notimply that any number of unofficial review sessions cannot be held. Norecord of unofficial review sessions need be kept.

d. In the official review session only the items agreed to in the contractshould be discussed and recorded. When the official review session hasbeen completed to the satisfaction of both parties, then other topics canbe opened up.

S. Any other information not included in No. 1 through No. 4 but felt to berelevant to the agreement.

Task Contingent Contracting may occur cp number of different ways on anumber of levels. Divisions may develop compreherlsive service delivery planswith one another but it is likely that individuals or groups will negotiate taskcontingent contracts with other negotiating units and with their supervisors. Inthis way, Task Contingent Management becomes .)oth an organitationatplanning

67

67

mechanism as well as a staff or unit evaluation system. The flexibility of thesystem is tremendous but it always involves accountability and evaluation.

The maior problems with such a system relate to the time needed to develop andmonitor contracts, the need for flexible managers and change oriented staff. andthe increased strain and need for communication between divisions. However,the payoffs of being prepared promise to be great at a time when greaterinterdependence between regular and special education is assured.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Recommendation to State A statewide needs assessments should be takento establish the status of each LEA or other service unit within the state in itsresponse to the LRE mandate. If discrepancies are found between LEAs, thefollowing model could be implemented.

2. Technical Assistance for LEAs: A number of school districts whichdemonstrate a high level of compliance could be financially assisted tobecome demonstration/training consortium leaders. They could be pairedwith non-complying districts and charged with an active role in providingtechnical assistance to facilitate broader compliance in each state. Targetgoals could be set for each year. such as refinement of assessment proceduresor curriculum building. Institutions of higher education cLuld assist in needsassessment and inservice activities. Positive reinforcement would accruethrough financial assistance in reaching each targeted goal.

As a technical assistance model developed, it would be important to identifyat least one area of strength in each of the LEAs receiving help. The LEA.Could thus participate as a trainer in that one dimension. For instance.District X after three years of assistance has an excellent vocational programwith handicapped and non-handicapped students fully integrated. In this oneprogram aspect they are eligible to provide training for districts which areunable to provide a program that meets the letter and spirit of the law.

3. State Funding Formula: One great obstacle to implementing the LREprovisions of 94.142 is a rigid state funding formula which acts to provideincentive for placing handicapped students in more restrictive environments.The Washington State , Legislature, for instance, raised the student.teacherratio of resource rooms from 26 to 1 to 35 to 1. This action has led to anincrease in numbers of special classes and the discontinuance of the lessrestrictive resource programs. A similar phenomenon has been reported in thestate of Connecticut (Weatherley and Lipsky, 1977).

States that base their funding for education of the handicapped on eligibility

68

criteria paired with absolute and auditable time requirements in segregatedclasses mitigate against any reasonable attempt of an LEA to comply withIRE provisions. It is recommended that the only funding formula that trulymeets the letter -and spirit of the law is one that follows the students andresults from IEP negotiatiOn and implementation.

A survey should be made to determine the kind and comprehensiveness ofcurriculum sequences used in programs for handielppecl students. After theinformation has seen gathered. technical assistance should be provided tothe districts lacking curriculum sequences or having incomplete curriculumsequences.

4. Rect. Arndatins to School Districts and Building Clusters: In addition tothe specific steps and procedures outlined earlier in this paper forimplementng the LRE provision, the following suggestions and cautions aregiven.

a. Traming packages should be developed for buildinglevel staff persons,including tted principal, the teachers, the support staff, the custodial staff,and the transportation staff to impart skills in handling exploitativesituations affecting handicapped students.

b. Training packages should be devcloped for non-handicapped students toassist them in their relationships with handicapped students.

c. Training packages should be developed for handicapped students to givethem skills in avoiding dangerous or exploitative situations, and in beingassertive when they are faced with such situations.

An emerging problem is the use of handicapped students to meet racialdesegregation quotas, particularly in urban school districts. The handicappedstudent is Particularly vulnerable because he and his parents are accustomed tobusing. However, prirJr placement on the basis of race is inconsistent with theIEP an" provisions of 94-142 and the neighborhood school provision ofsect' . of the tiocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973, It is recommended

. Corriniisciener point out this issue to SEAs and strongly recommend thedscontinuance of such practices.

CONCLUSION

As won at! attemnts to use one of society's institutions as an instrument ofprimary social change. the implementation of the LRE provisiormust occurbefore there is a systematic, scientific analysis of its efficacy in producing thedesired Otr., !t is rot yet known whether physical integration actually doesproduce the lapetience. unde.standing, an the ability to provide peerencoufagement" envisioned by Daniels (p. 2t1. or, conversely, will "lessen thequality of education receivA by,both regular and special children," as feared bythe AFT (Shenker, 1977b),

The authors have attempted to come to grips with some of the complex,multi-faceted issues involved in implementing the IRE provisions of P.L.94-142. At the present time we conclude that implementing the provision is anaffirmation of a civil right of all handicapped children, but that the pedagogicalbenefits accrued to normal and handicapped children will depend entirely on thegood will and prodigious efforts of parents, professionals, students, and thegeneral public.

Meeting the letter, and particularly the spirit, of the law will call for areassessment of the use of schools as sorters, a new look at the education of allchildren, and considerable change in current educational thought and practice.

7070

REFERENCES

Abeson, A. Education for handicapped children in the least restrictiveenvironment. In M. Kindred, J. Cohen, D. Penrod, & T. Shaffer (Eds.), TheMentally Retarded Citizen and the Law. New York: The Free Press, 1976.

Abeson, A., & Ballard, J. State and federal policy for exceptional children. In F.Weintraub, A. Abeson, J. Ballard, & M. laVor (Eds.), Public Policy andthe Education of Exceptional Children. Council for Exceptional Children,1976.

Aid bill is voted for handicapped Provides for appropriate free pub :',.education. New York Times, November 20, 1975, 22:1.

American Annals of the Deaf: Directory of Programs and Services. April, 1977,122:2.

Ballard, J., & Zettel, J. Public Law 94-142 and Section 504: What they sayabout rights and protections. Exceptional Children, 1977, 44(31, 177.184,

Brooke, E. P.1.94 -142: Getting the money to make it work. Today's Education,November-December, 1977, pp. 13-15.

Carroll, M. Mixing of all children urged. New York Times, April 11, 1975, 41:4.

Chiba, C., & Semmel, M. I. Due proz:ess and least restrictive alternative: Newemphasis on parental participation. In M. I. Semmel & J. L. Heinmiller(Eds.), Viewpoints: The Education for Al! Handicapped Children Act (P.1.. 94142) Issues and Implications. illoomington: School of Education,Indiana University, 1977.

Congressional Record House, Novembe- 19, 1975, Mr. Don onick V. Daniels,P. H11353.

Congressional Record Senate, June 19, 1975, Mr. Stafford, p. 510961.

Dday for the disabled. Time, May 30, 1977, p. 44.

Diana v. State Rriiird of Education, C-70-37 (RFP Misr. Ct. N. Cal., 1970,.

Doll, E. A. Vineland ^ial maturity scale. Circle Pines, Minnesota: AmericanGuidance Services, 1965.

Findley, W., & Bryan, M. Ability grouping: 1970, as cited in Kirp (see below), p.P. fn. 20.

71 71.

Goffman, E. Stigma: Notes tIn the management of wiled identity. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ.: Prentice Hall, 1963.

Greenberg, J., & Doolittle, G. Can schools speak the language of the deaf. Net'York Times Magazine, December 11. 1977, p.50.

Hechinger, F. M. Bringing the handicapped into the mainstream. New YorkTimes, April 25, 1976, XII, 15:1.

Hicks, N. Equity for disabled likely to be costly. New York Times, May 1, 1977,29:1,

Holingshead, A. B. Elmtown's Youth. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1949.

Horaceck a Exon.No. 72-6-299 (D. Neb., 1975). As cited in Soskin, below.

Humphrey, G. A. Statement of the American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIObefore the Senate subcommittee on the handicapped regrding oversighton P. L. 94-142. July 25. 1977.

into the mainstream Time, November4515, 1976, p. 90.

Joyce Z. No. 203560 IC.C.P. Allegheny County, Pa., 1975).

Kenowitz, L, Zweibel, S., & Edgar, E. Determining the least restrictiveeducational opportunity for the severely and profoundly handicapped.Unpublished manuscript, Experimental Education Unit, ChildDevelopment and Mental Retardation Center. University of Washington.Seattle, Washington, 1977,

Kimbrough, R. B. Political power and educational decision making. RandMcNally, 1964.

Kirp. D. L. Schools as sorte.s.. The consitutional and policy implications ofstudent classification. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Law

Review, 21:4,

Lowenbraun, S., & Affieck. J. 0. Teaching mildly handicapped children inregular classes. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill 1976.

Maeroff, G. Major bill to aid handicap"ed. New York Times, November 6. 1975,26:4.

Matron, G. Schools are forced to pay more attention to disabled. New YorkTimes, May 11, 1977, 20:1.

72 72

Maeroff, G. Teachers weigh limit on number of handicapped pupils per class.New York Times, August 19,1976, 36:4.

Mainstreaming handicapped students with regular students: Are teachersprepared? NEA Briefing Memo, August, 1975, p. 2.

Milof sky, D. Schooling the kids ro one wants A new federal law requiresmainstreaming of handicapped children int..) regular classes. New YorkTimes, January 2, 1977. VI, p. 24.

Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia. 34R FSupp. 866 ID. C.1972).

Molloy, L. New help for the handicapped. Psychology Today, April, 1975, pp.35.36.

NEA Teacher Information Sheet ("P. L. 94.142: The education for at!handicapped act.") July 19, 1977, p. 2.

New day for the handicapped: Now they will go to school with everyone else.Time, September 19, 1977, p. 109.

New York Association kw Retarded Children v. Carey. 393 FSupp. 715(E.D.N.Y., 1975) As cited in Soskin, below.

Nichols, P, A day in the death of Joe Egg. London: Faber & Faber, 1967,

On teaching the handicapped. New York Times, August 22, 1976. IV, 9:1.

Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth ofPennsylvania, 334 FSupp 1257 (E. D. PA. 1971).

Rauth, M. Mainstreaming: A river to nowhere or a promising current? A specialreport to the AFT task force on educational issues.

Research Division, National Education Associatation. Teachers opinion poll:Ability grouping. NEA Journal, February, 1965, P. t.03.

Rights of the handicapped New rules stir turmoil. U4. News and WorldReport, May 9, 1977, 82:84.

Royer, J. Integrating the handicapped. Today's Education, SeptemberOctober,1977. op. 24-26.

7.)73

Royer, J. Mainstreaming. Today's Education, March-April, 1976.

Schooling the handicapped: New law requires free public education for alldisabled children. NEA Reporter, October, 1977, pp. 4-5.

Shenker, A. Help ahead for handicapped but . . . New law also creates someproblems. New York Times, March 20, 1977a, IV, 7:5.

Shenker, A. Letter to AFT leaders. January 18, 1977b.

Shankei , A. Letter to the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped. February28,1977c.

Soskin, R, M. The least restrictive alternative: In principle and in application.Amicus, 1977, 2(6), 28-32.

Specialized educational services. Madison, Wisconsin: Madison Public Schools,1973.

Stephanie L. No. J-184924 Juv. Div. (C.C.P. Phila. County, 1977).

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Proposed Rules forEducation of Handicapped Children: Implementation of part B of theHandicapped Act. Federal Register, August 23, 1977a.

U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Proposed Rules forNondiscrimination on Basis of Handicap: Programs and ActivitiesReceiving or Benefiting from Federal Financial Assistance. FederalRegister, May 4, 1977b.

Weatherley, R., & Lipsky, M. Street-level bureaucrats and institutionalinnovation: Implementing special education reform. Harvard EducationalReview, May, 1977, V: 2, 171-197.

Wyatt v. Stickney. 344 FSupp. 387 (M.D. ALA. 1972). As vied in Soskin,above.

74

APPENDIX

A Checklist Regarding Proposed Criteria:

Proposed Criteria:Yes No

.es

1. If a child is placed in a totally self.cordained setting. has itbeen determined legally and medically that the child orthe society would be harmed by his removal from thatsetting?

2. If a child Is placed in a day or residential school, does itprovide opportunities for systematic interaction with andproximity to normal peers?

3. Does the facility provide for non-academic or academicintegration?

4. Has the integrated environment been assessed for itssuitability in making physical accommodations forchildren who are physically handicapped. visuallyimpaired, hearing impaired?

5. Has the integrated environment been assessed for itssuitability in making educational/social accommoda..insto children by providing:

education of regular administratorseducation of regular teaching staffeducation of normal peerssupport services to teacherssupport services to peerssupport services to administratorssupport services to classified staffeducation of parents of normal peerseducation of parents of handicapped children

6. Have formulae for support services been developed on anindividual basis for children who are blind, hearingimpaired, physically handicapped. ID-ED, EMR, andSMR?

7. Have older students been given the opportunity andsupport necessary to avail themselves of the vocationaltraining opportunities in regular schools?

8. If a handicapped child is attending a regular class orinteracting with normal peers, as prescribed by his IEP,,has the school been equipped physically, and has its staff'been prepared psychologically, to receive the child andmaximize his chances for-success?

75

Yes No9. Have as many schools as possible within a district been

equipped physically and their staffs preparedpsychologically to receive handicapped children?

10, Have all placement options been arranged to comply withthe previsions of 504 making a child's neighborhoodschool his first option unless that school is proven to beincapable of providing an appropriate program?

11. Have handicapped children new to the district been placedin diagnostic classrooms until their 1EFs are developed?

12. Is a full range of options available in every school district?

For mildly handicapped students, have these criteria beenmet?

13. Has a precise, educationally relevant diagnosis been madethat pinpoints a child's levels of achievement?

14. Has an individually prescribed instructional plan beenbased on this diagnosis?

15. Are continuous child performance data kept during alleducational procedures?

16. Have special education resources followed the eligiblehandicapped child into the regular classroom?

17. Are there carefully specified job desc lotions and dailyschedules for special education iterant teachers or

,resource teachers, and are these available to the regularclassroom teacher who teaches handicapped children?

18. Have regular education personnel received extra trainingin assessment skills, individualization of instruction andcirriculurn, data keeping and educational deCisionmaking, preparing teacher sequences, and behaviormanagement skills?

19. Has the filassroom's physical setup been modified in orderto provide more systematic teaching?

20. Has the teacher's role changed to that of an instructionmanager responsible for coordinating one of moieprofessionals or paraprofessionals in his or her classroom?

For hearing impaired children, nave these criteria been met?

21. Has the classroom been sound treated in consultation withqualified audiologists?

22. Has hard-ofhearing children's functional use of hearingbeen tested in the integrated classroom?

23. Has a system of visual warning for emergencies beeninstalled?

76

Yes No24. Have school administrators and teaching staff been

educated to the nature and needs of hearing impairedchildren?

25. Have normal peers been educated concerning the natureand needs of hearing impaired children?

26. Has the full range of support services necessary been madeavailable to teachers and their hearing impaired students?

27. Have the parents of both the hearing impaired childrenand the normal children been educated about the needs ofthe hearing impaired children?

For severely behavior disordered children, have these criteriabeen met:

28. When, SBD children are placed in residential urinstitutional facilities, have the educational concerns andeducational placement been dealt with separately fromthe purely custodial concerns?

29. Have safety concerns regarding classroom and schoollocation been addressed?

30. Is the staff able to assess and program for a variety ofindividual behaviors? Have the staff's expectations andvalues been evaluated and, where necessary, changed?

31 ;s there an effectively planned educational program foreach child and a realistically based inservice program forthe whole school community?

32. Have all manpower needs been addressed and met!33. Has the staff received adequate inservice training to

acquire the specific skills necessary to respond to SRDchildren?

34. Are the school administrators taking into account threustaff's energy and resource, in planning? Are theysensitive to staff "energy-drain" problems?

35. When the SBD child is placed in an appropriate setting,does his educationa' program include the following: directand ongoing assessment; individualized programs inpreacademics, academics, and social interactions; behaviormodification approach to instruction; and daily datacollect ion?

77

SECTION II

Assessment of the Complexity of theLeast Restrictive Environment Provision

of P.L. 94-142

Gregory F. Mole

ALO1A. GREGORY F. Dr. Akita is Assistant Professor at the University ofArizona in the Department of Special Education and Director of the MentalRetardation Graduate Program. He is also currently serving as a consultant forseveral LEA's in Arizona. Dr. Aloia received his Ph.D. in Special Educationfrom the University of California at Riverside In 1976. He has worked as anEducational Specialist for the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped in theUnited States Office of Education. There he was involved in the assessment ofState Educational Agencies reporting capabilities in relation to P.L. 94.142. Hisprofessional activities include membership in the Council for ExceptionalChildren and the American Association of Mental Deficiency. He has publishedresearch findings on teachers and peer attitudes towards mainstreamedhandic.oped children and has ccZnducted several workshops in local districts inrelation to implementing P. L. 94 -1

80

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The LRE component of Public Law 94.142 represents a complex andcontroversial issue. Much confusion and emotion currently exist in the field ofeducation as to its meaning, scope. and method of implementation. Of all therelated issues in the new public law, none seems togenerate as much intensity asthe LRE doctrine. No other aspect of the law is so closely associated with thephysical relocation of handicapped children from one setting to another.Whether the relocation represents movement from a program, classroom or aninstitut'orial setting, concern is expressed.

In the development of this paper many professionals were queried as to theirperception of the key components of the new law. Without fail the LREdoctrine was mentioned as the most critical component in the initial phase ofimplementing the public law.

Due to the complexity of the issue, the approach utilized by this writer in thedevelopment of this manuscript was to systematically assess the current state ofthe art in relation to the LIE doctrine, This was done through: a) a review ofthe current literature available on the IRE concept, b) observation of currentpractices in LEAs, institutions, and privets agencies. c) interviews withadministrators, teachers, and parents and d) survey of an entire school districtconsisting of special education, regular education, and administrative personnel.The objective of this writer was to document as many possible facets of the LREconcept as was presented by the existing data base.

The format of this paper is divided into three chapters. The first chapter willexamine the attitudes and expectations of parents, teachers, and administratorsin regards to the IRE doctrine. The general issues and concerns surrounding theIRE component of Public Law 04.142 will be presented.

The secorid chapter will systematically explore the Federal Regulations as theyrelate to the IRE doctrine. The arrangement of this chapter will follow theexisting outline of the various sections found in the regulations for Public Law94-142. Each section of the regulations that is examined will contain, whereappropriatet recommendations, forms and suggestions for implementations. aswell as, implicotions for developing a self-study guide.

The third chapter of the paper will outline a series of recommendations inaddition to those suggested in part two. The recommendations will hopefullyaddress some of the concerns related to the IRE doctrine that were nothighlighted in other chapters of the paper,

81

u

1. LRE ATTITUDE SURVEY

in preparation for the writing of this manuscript, a survey of an LEA wasconducted to assess the current knowledge base and understanding of the PublicLaw and the LRE doctrine (Alois, Knutson, Minner, and Von Seggern, 1977Several interesting insights resulted from this effort.

a) Sample The sample consisted of 107 individuals representing the regularclass teachers, special class teachers, resource room teachers, classroom aides,school principals, district level administrators, school ptychblogists, and othersupport persons. There were 28 males and 79 females with an average yearsexperience of 8,2 years. The racial composition of the sample consisted of 90whites, 3 blacks, 9 MexicanAmericans. and 5 who indicated other racialpreferences. There was one Ph.D. and 48 masters degrees throughout tha

b) Results: Results indicated that much confusion vxists regarding theunderstanding and definition of the LRE doctrine, This confusion was found toexist between and within the various levels of each school as welt as through theLEA as a whole.

The most obvious discrepancy in the knowledge base yeilded by the surveyinstrument was found in relation to the definition of the LRE concept. Thefollowing is a list of definitions provided by staff members when queried as tothe meaning of the least restrictive environment.

1) Freedom ol movement for physically handicapped children.2) Environment closest to the regular class.3) A regular schedule.4) A setting where minimum help is needed.5) Socialization of a child.6) The maximum growth of a student.7) The environment most like the regular class.8) The environment that is least distracting to the student.9) Nonstructure,

10) Flexible.

As indicated from the above, very few if any of the subjects had a trueunderstanding of the complexity of the concept of the least restrictiveenvironment. It is interesting to note that, prior to this survey being undertaken,the LEA provided its personnel with six inservice workshops on the new PublicLaw ono components of that law.

The survey also highlighted several other areas in relation to the IRE componentof the law:

1) There was a tremendous inconsistency of knowledge among the staff

Si

members in regards to the actual placement protiedures of the handicappedchildren in both academic and nonacademic settings,2) Most schools in the LEA did not have full services resulting in manyhandicapped children being currently bused to other schools for programs andservices. The knowledge that this was taking place ranged from completeundirrstandirvg by some staff members to no knowledge or understanding at allby others.3) Responses by staff members within the same school were often confused andcontradictory about the placement location of their handicapped students. Veryfew in each school were aware of the actual location and nature of programs forthe handicapped children.4) Very few subjects were aware of the LRE continuum within'they schools.5) The largest body of ignorance was found to exist among aides andpara-professionals operating in the classrooms.

Needless to say, the state of the art of implementing the LRE doctrine wasdismal at best. It should also be noted that this condition was not unique to thisparticular LEA, but appeared to be quite similar across other LEAs.

The survey helped to shape the posture of this paper by focusing on 'manyspecific aspects of the issues relating to the LRE concept. The results of thesurvey were also responsible for shaping some general recommendations for anyfuture inservice training efforts andior evaluation of the level of implementationof the new public law.

2. LRE CONCERNS OF PARENTS,TEACHERS, AND ADWNISTRATORS

The complexity involved in the LRE doctrine can be seen in the concernsexpressed by parents, teachers, and administrators. Any attempt to successfullymodify programs. services or relocate handicapped students will necessitate acommitment on the part of these groups. In order to appreciate themulti facetted nature of their concerns, a brief overview of each group will depresented,

a) Parents: Parents, are generally committed to protecting their handicappedchild even to the point of hinny to appreciate the potential improvements andbenefits that may occur from better programs and services. This protection a- I

the intensity of involvement of parents tend to increase as the disability of thechild increases from the mild and moderately handicapped to the severely andprofoundly handicapped. If a current program is providing the basic needs of ahandicapped child in the eyes of the parents, they may be hard-pressed to. acceptwhat appears to be arbitrary changes in programs and/or services under therubric of "mainstreaming", This appears to be the case especially in terms of

83

relocating their handicapped child for the sake of improving the child'seducations! potential !academic/vocational :kills!. Much concern, for example,has been expressed by parents that their handicapped child be protected fromintimidation of ndn.handicapped in a less restrictive setting. Fear of ridicule,rejection. and hurnilietion have been exPreserid by et 0.erentt concerned.Needless to say, this is a sod indictment of the "son-handicapped child as well asour ability to educate ilhodren in tolerance ol !ether 14"

elorejli (19751 noted that most parents typleail, have mixed reactions regardingthe removal of an institutionalized duid iron his rirsidential placement forenrcl;rnent in community programs. lee states that parents fear that the childvrifr receive en- ineeProweite education ;n .tires leis restrictive setting. Also, theretarh of a child to the family on a full time basis can only rekindle potentialpersonal torifltcte end anguish that parents experience in originally deckling tosend the child away tb live :rt- a residintial setting.

Horem (14151 goes on to note that another obsteele for implementation of theL,RE doctrine mey /mine hem parents; opposed to placing their hendiCatreiedChart riy speor education setting. Some parents feel very reluctant to piaceti ,ciptiei. child le a special class, day school, or residential school. Theyti ited.Olateme, is ars, :east d.eareble because they view their Oitaes g .r" if netshe has to be in d specialized setting. These parentsanparently tend to edi ate tducatiunai ane witn *he regular classand retoe with ?hr. nitre restrictiv,:: sett rigs like specie! schools or residential

An indicetion of the extent of these proeiem be fourel tn two repentexamples. The first involves en attempt to reto zte the existing IMPprogram fro.vi an isoatepo special school to a new building adjacent to a juniorhigh school campus.. Not only this relocation improve de physicalStrixture and the environment. but vibuld alto greatly improve the possibility ofservices rid prO9fikrYi3 to the ,lanrlicapped child Initially, parents ties veryresistant to the idea, They felt that the existing program for their handicappedauld although sOrriewhilt lento.., Was meeting their child's-needs and thereforewere hesitant to 'melt the boat The specs.' education eteef vikWe alsoapprehensive about the move. sensing a possible threat to their existingPr,e;'teret TherdAOre. much effete; was expended by the LEA to insure that theBotecl of Edueat.on would approve the bond issue to build the new t acitity. Thisvies. teliesided by an extent:ye public relations campaign by the LEA to injureaieetertarice of the bond nue. by the public. The LEA is now currently planningtee face.tv and hag, actively involved the parents and special education staff to

Sufe their increased commitment to the new facility, programs, and services tobe developed.

Although. there at vantages to the rt, vs, the underlYtne fesIsteno? is

84

1`.

still evident. There still exists much concern over the unprotected exposure ofhandicapped children to the mainstreamed environment on the regular schoolcampus. If it were not for the geniune interest and sensitivity on the part of theLEA to these parent's and staff's concerns the building program and all its

. benefits may have been defeated. Yet, on the surface one would have expectedthe parent] groups to be overwhelmingly in support of the LEA's intent todevelop a new program for their handicapped children. This especially shouldhave been the case after special education was ignored or given a very lbwpriority by the LEA for so many years.

The second example involves the efforts of a local state-operated facility for thementally retarded to de-institutionalize programs and services. Parents initiallywere very 'reluctant to support any attempts to mainstream their children intothe local community programs and services. However, the professionalcommitment the staff, the gradual and systematic exposure of their studentsto successful experiences, and the increased involvement of parents in the totalWoos% were instrumental in reversing the initial parental attitudes of resistance.Many of the same parents are now advocates of the entire process.

These changes in attitude and involvement of parents over time were highlightedin an article in the Tucson Citizen (January 19, 1978) in which a repjrt on statehearings revealed that two groups of parents were actually at odds aboutimproving programs and services for the handicapped children. One group -.4parents was very apprehensive about p acing their children in less restricitvesettings than the institution. These feelings were due primarily to their lack ofexposure and/or involvement in any programs designed to serve their childrenoutside of the institution i.e., mainstreamed classes. Other parents who had beeninvolved with the integration of their children into community-based programswere very supportive of the efforts of the state to improve programs andservices for the handicapped in this manner.

Therefore, it is important to consider these parental concerns, as well as, aI transition time required by parents to adjust to the benefits of community-basedprograms for their children. This adjustment time will be a critical dimension ininsuring that the IRE doctrine moves from the letter of the law to the spirit ofthe law while still maintaining parental support.

b) Special Education Teachers: The special education teachers must also besold on the principles involved in the IRE doctrine. Many teachers perceive theLAE doctrine and its implementations as a threat to their existing programsand/or their skills and professional competencies,

Similf.r concerns such as those expressed by special education staffs were alsonoted by Horejsi (1975) regarding institutional staff members. They perceivedthe results of the IRE doctrine to be the possible loss of jobs and positions, as

85

8

well as, the general decline of the institution as more and more handicappedchildren wore integrated into community programs. There was also concernregarding the adverse infects on the economy of small rural communities wherethe institution represents the major employing agent in the arse.

Thus, both special education and institutionalized staff members indicated thatless restrictive settings could not adequately serve the needs of their populationand that the implementation of the LRE doctrin.) could result in a decline in thequality of services to handicapped children. The extent to which these problems

currently exist will reflect the potential level of resistance towards

implementation of the IRE doctrine.

c) Regular Education Teachers: As the movement towards the spirit of theIRE doctrine increases, the involvement of the regular class teacher with thehandicapped child will increase. The concern that lses been expressed by theregular class teachers: (1) does not appear enthusiastic aoout receiving harder toteach children (Melcher, 1971), (2) is unable to handle the range of individualdifferences presented by a mainstreamed child (MacMillan, 1971), (3) isunfamiliar with the characteristics of the handicapped child (Brooks andBransford, 1971), (4) has traditionally received little or no exposure toexceptional children (Martin, 1974) (Yates, 1973), (5) has received littleinformation from regular education literature regarding the process ofmainstreaming (MacMillan, Jones, and Meyers, 1976), and (6) is resistant toaltering existing teaching styles to adjust to the handicapped child (Nix, 1977).

It is apparent that, if regular education is to play a meaningful role in thequalitative implementation of the IRE doctrine, these concerns must be

addressed.

d) Administrators: The role of the administrator from the coordinator of the)EP process to the superintendent of the LEA is critical in the implementationof the LRE doctrine, There must be commitment and support of the IREprocess if it is to be successful. However, Nix (1976) indicates that there isconcert, regarding the impact of mainstreaming handicapped children into their

s ;terns, especially in relation to costs. As budgets become more and morelimited, it will be important to insure that the basic tenants of the IRE doctrineare not compromised as a result.

A superintendent indicated that, to date, the commitment and understanding ofadministrators =towards the IRE Joctrire very limited at best. This is primarilydue to the administrators failing to periAtive their importance in the involvement

of the mainstreaming process. Until the importance of Pub Law 94-142 isadequately perceived by administrators as a main component of the overalleducational program, they will fail to assume a key role in its implementation.

This concludes chapter one of the paper. The second chapter will address the

various components found within the regulations and their impact on theimplementation of the Least Restrictive Environment Doctrine.

CHAPTER 11

1. GENERAL MODEL OF LRE PLACEMENT OPTIONS

Sections 12111132(b), (1), (2),and 121a 551(a)

Section 12181321b1, (1), (2) and Section 121a - 551(a) require that each LEAprovide a continuum of alternative placements to meet the needs of thehandicapped chid.

It is recommended that each LEA develop a comprehensive continuum ofservices to address this requirement. To assist the LEA's in their efforts todevelop a comprehensive spec *rum of services, a general model highlighting thepotential points along a contiauum of placements is presented below.

The general model does cot directly address the qualitative aspects of theindividual placement settings. (This component of the LRE doctrine will beexplored in another chapter of this paper.) However, the general model and itscomponents were generated from two assumptions that indirectly address thequalitative c Jonent of a placement, These assumptions are:

a) a placement..gritiort must exist before a child can receive services, therefore itshould be documented.the more options available in any one primal" setting, the greater theflexibility in designing a child's programs.

The general model is to be used primarily as a selfstudy guide to enable eachLEA to assess the LRE potential within each setting as well as to encourageLEA's to develop a similar one that truly reflects their full placement wtions.Howevei, it is recommended that field testing be done to insure that theproposed model is both reliable and valid for use by the LEA's. Thus, if thevarious components of the model were included as pact of a self.study guide,they would not only indicate the possible options for each LEA to consider, butalso provide direction as to what "best practices" could be in terms of servicesavailablt.1 to the handicapped child.

A general model of this kind w.ruld present several advantages for an LEA:

1) Each placement team can him easy actress to the primary placement, s tting,

R?

bu

and alternatives for any handicapped child within those settings.2) Each LEA can assess its placement options within ach primary setting to

insure that sufficient flexibility exists.3) Parents can see the options available for their children.4) The placement options of all primary settings can be examined to insure that

there is proper intra-and inter-agency cooperation.5) Ahy modification in placement alternatives can be easily charted over time as

the LEA moves towards a more qualitative implementation.

The first phase of the general model was developed by determining what primaryplacements should be available to all handicapped students through the LEA.Each child should have designated in his/her IEP a primary placementassignment based on the numbsr of hours/nanutes spent each day in that setting.

Thew points along the continuum of primary placements will facilitate theplacement team's decision in assigning a primary placement.

This phase of the general model is represented by the following primary

placement settings:

a. Regular classb. Resource roomc. Special classd. Special schoole. Private day schoolf. Residential, public/privateg. Hospitalh. HomeboundI. Q.rections

Please refer to General Model Primary Placement Settings Horizontal

Continuum.

88

GENERAL MODEL

ci PRIMARY PLACEMENT SETTINGS MORIZONTAL CONTIUUM

Each point along the contiutim represents the primary assignment of the haodicapped child as indicated in the child's 1EP.

44

Regular Resource Special Special Private Public/PriveteClass Room Class School Day School Institutions Hospital' Homebound Corrections

A B C D E F G H 1

vb.

Each option within each primary assignment (A to 1) represents the placement alternatives for thehandicapped child. The more options, the greater the flexibility in programs to achieve the LeastRestrictive Carting for all h ,ndicapped children.

The second phase of the general model consisted of generating a series ofplacement options within each of the primary settings. This phase of the modelis represented by a series of forms reflecting the variations within each primarysetting.

These forms were designed to provide the LEA with direct assistance in assessingthe availability of placement options for all handicapped children within each ofthe primary placement settings. The forms will also assist the LEA indetermining the flexibility and placement options within other facilities (publicand private) where they have placed their students. For example, if a privateresidential facility does not have a series of placement options operating withinits program that reflect a continuum consistent with the LRE doctrine, then theLEA should be very cautious in placing students in that program. The underlying

'assumption here is that, without placement options within a particular primarysetting, it is predertermined that the child will stay at the level of functioningwhich was a justification for original placement, It therefore precludes theopportunity for modification of placement settings which reflect growth andmaturation by the child.

Please refer to form A through 1 for the placement options within each of theprimary settings.

A

8 1

it

FORM Aa

PRIMARY ASSIGNMENT

REGULAR CLASS

Full Time in Regular Class with Supportiveand/or Indirect Services to the Teacher

Full Time in Regular Classand Instruction from

vith Direct ServiceItinerant Teacher

--7I[ Part Tune' in Regular Class with

Instruction and /or Involvement** in Resource Room

---1Class with Instruction

in Special Classa

[------Part Time in Regular

and/or Involvement

.Part Time in Regular Class withInstructrin and /'or Involvement in Other

Setting Such as Special School, etc.

*Part time setting would still be considered the primary assignment of thechild if most of the child's time is spent in that settig

'instruction refers tc. academic related activities, involvement refers tononacademic/extracurricular activities

91

FORM B

PRIMARY ASSIGNMENT

RESOURCE ROOM

Part Time' Resource Room with Instruction and/or Involvement in the Regular Classroom.

[

Full Time in Resource Room

Part Time in Resource Room with Instructionand/or Involvement in Special Class

Part Time in Resource Room withInstruction in Special School

Time in Resource Room withInstruction in Other Setting Such asPrivate Day School Institution, etc.

'Part time setting would still be considered the primary assignment of thechild if most of the child's time is spent in that setting.

"Instruction refers to academic related activities, involvement refers tononacademic extracurricular activities,

92

FORM C

PRIMARY ASSIGNMENT

SPECIAL CLASS

Special Class Part Time* withRegular Class Instruction and/or Involvement**

Special Class Part Time with Resource RoomInstruction and/or Involvement

T Special Class Full Time1

1----Part Time

instruction[..Special Class

with Special School

r---, Special Class Part 1"!114. withInstruction in Other Sethriq

Removed from Regular Education

'Part time setting would stilt he considered the pr mart' msignmerit of theChild if most of the child's tule is spent in that setting

"Instruction refers to acd em4c related actottes. involvement refers tonoracadernicieutracurricular activ; ties.

93c!

a

FORM D

PRIMARY ASSIGNMENT

SPECIAL SCHOOL(PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL)

Special School Part Time' withRegular Class Instruction and/or Involvement

Special School Part Time withResource Room Instruction and/or Involvement"

Spec.al School Part tme with Special C4nsInst!tiCton and n, Invnivemant

T

School Fitit T,me

SOt. SA-ht1t1 Fu`; T.me w,rt,driti.of involvement

P? ,jtv Da, Soiou:

-.0

Pat t, " i; !me i,,',enS.(jtetj tttc OtIrtiary ass.vnment of the,t , ' t.twelt =n tt`ctt

dcalsoit,c wrIP,.-? refers, tUth-stnaf dtlistttq: ,vo as estIt',v-t-t,S

94

iT

FORM E

PRIMARY ASSIGNMENT

PRIVATE DAY SCHOOL

Part Time Day School with Instructionand/or Involvement in Regular Class Program

Part Time Day School with Instructionand/or Involvement in

al Resource RoOmb) Special Classc) Special Schoul-

Private Day School dull Time

Ptivate Day School Part Timewith Instruction and Involvementin Institution, Corrections, etc

eParvt me setting would still b considered the primary assignment of, thechild if most of the child's time is spent in that setting.

"instruction refers to academic related- act, tinonacademititxtracurrickAat activstes.

v trent rAters AO

4.

FORM F

PRIMARY ASSIGNMENT

PUBLIC/PRIVATE INSTITUTION

An institutional assignment has to consider the residericy of the handicappedchild as well as the degree of educational instruction rid involvement.Therefore, the specific contiuum of services .ane the nature of those serviceswill vary greatly depending on the kind of institutional setting underconsideration,

For example, the specifics to a continuum of placement options for aninstitution for the mentally retarded, deafblind or emotionally disturbul willbe very different. However, the options listed below and the availabrrity ofthese options should be found in all program options of every institution,

RESIDENTIAL CONTINUUM EDUCATIONAL CONTINUUM

rNatural Homeof Child

InstitutionalGroup Home

Full Time PublicDay School

0.1 Pert Time Institutioat SchoolwithInstruction andforInvolvement inPublic Day School

Full I ..e.r Residence

an InstitutionFull Time Institution.at School

FORM G

PRIMARY ASSIGNMENT

HOSPITAL4

As with the institutional placement, much, vat:iatibn'will be found within thehospital continuum of placement options. The nature and cause of theplacement will determine the specific aiternativea provided to each handicappedchild., However. each hospital porgrarn should develop placement options (whereappropt:atel to insure that all handitapped children ate, provided services in theLeast Restrictive :Setting.

frESiDENCY EDUCATION

Natural Horne 7, F (di tatePuPlic SCn

Poste HomePdt t., 1.471e Hospitdi

School Vel th inS te dC:1,0n

and of Inyoleertve!lt: in PuhliC Day SChOO!

',Part Ilene Setting would s coosidexed

full Time 1-Inswtal SchotS

1.,.t4natv assi9nrrient o# foechild it most of the child's time is spent in that se?!=ng

*!'10StrUCtiOit refers to academic relateu .ttgnerit Oers tohonacadem:ctexttacutriculat. actrvit45

NOTE. To date, the writer has -not observed athis model repretents,Muchzoniecture

61,0,1 >togr3th The?t,die.

FORM H

PRIMARY ASSIGNMENT

HOMEBOUND

The invctvement of the handicapped Odd in the mainstreaming of educationwill depend on the nature and severity of the ,hindicapping condition and theLEA's reason for homebound instruction. However, consideration should begiven to program options to insure that as the child develops, less restrictivesettings are aye:labia to him/her specific program of options will vary withthe unique needs of each hen,. I child, The following general optionsshould be available for each child.

ACADEMIC NONACADEMIC'NSTRUCTION INVOLVEMSNT

1..0_6.Part Time Homebound withInstruction in other Setting

Full TimeHomebound

..-+L t=oll Time Involvtmerit I

97 "

Part TimeInvolvement

No NonacademicInvolvement

FORM I

PRIMARY ASSIGNMENT

CORRECTIONS

The nature of a correction facility will determine the range of options that areavailable for any placed handicapped student. However, each"LEA should insurethat all handicapped residents of a correctional facility are identified, evaluatedand provided the most appropriate services in the Least Restrictive Setting,This can be done by having the services brought to the child or the child broughtto the services.

An example of this is a nearby LEA which currently has students from acorrectional facility attending its day classes, Therefore, each LEA should insure(where appropriate) that each correctional facility will prc4ide placementoptions for their students, An example of this could

Full Time Correctional Facility withInstruction and/or Involvement'

in a Less Restrictive Setting

Full Time P- ogramat Correctional Facility

"Instruction refers to academic related activities; involvement refers to non-acadeinidextracurricular activities.

96

2. DISTANCE FROM REGULAR EDUCATION PROGRAM

Section 121&227 (b), (1), (2)Section 121a.550 (2)

a) Rationale: The following Sections 1218.550 (2) and.' 121a.227 (hi, (1) (2),state that all handicapped children should be educated in the regular educationclasses to the extent appropriate to their ability. Therefore, it is recommendedthat a form be designed to enable the LEA to assess the extent to which thehandicapped children under their jurisdiction are receiving services and programsin the regular education class setting.

This form will provide each LEA with the general distribution of thehandicapped population. The case of each handicapped chili should be reviewedannually to determine if a placement closer to the regular educationenvironment may lire provided, assuming that it would be most appropriate forfor the child's abilities and skills. (Please refer to form entitled Distance fromRegal& Education Prografn.)

100

Date

Unit Name

DISTANCE FROM REGULAR EDUCATION PROGRAM

Instructions: Please complete the following form on all handicapped children frArr rt)r LEA indicating theprimary location of their assignment as indicated in their !EP,

REGULARCLASS

RESOURCEROOM

SPECIALCLASS

SPECIALSCHOOL

PRIVATEDAY SCHOOL

Disability Age 1841 IS 8-17 1841 3. 817 mr 3,k, 617 4-21 3.5 617 1621

1) Cleat

2) Deaf Shod

3) Hard of Hearing

4) Mentally Retarded

Si Multi Handicapped

6) Of thopethcally Impaired

7) Other Hearth Impaired

8) Seriously EmotionallyDisturbed

9) Specific LearningDisability

10) Speech impaired

11) Visually Handicapped

Date

Unit Name

DISTANCE FROM REGULAR EDUCATION PROGRAM

Instructions: Please complete the following form on all handicapped children fromyour LEA indicating the primarylocation of their assignment as indicated in their IEP.

PUBLIC/PRIVATEINSTITUTIONS

HOSPITAL HOMEBOUND CC 1ECTIONALrACILITY

DitabilitYiAOR 3.5 6.17 18.21 IR 617 18-21 3.5 6-17-/

18-21 3-5 6-17 1821

1) Deaf1

2) Deaf Blind

3) Hato of Hearing.,

4) Mentally Retarded

Si Multi Handicapped

6) Orthopedically Impaired

71 Other Health Impaired

8) Seriously EmotionallyDisturbed al

9) Specific LearningDisability

-. .k

t

10) Speech Impaired .

k

11) Visually Handicapped .r \

3. IEP MODIFICATION FOR LRE STATEMENT:ACADEMIC AND NONACADEMIC INVOLVEMENT

Section 1218.346 (c)Sectior 121a.306 (a), (b)Section 504 --1973 Rehabilitation ActSection 1218.553

a) Rationale: Section 121a.346 (c) requires that the IEP contain a statement ofthe extent in which each handicapped child will participate in regular educationprograms. Also, Section 121a.306 (a) (b) and Section 504 of the 1973Rehabilitation Act requests that all handicapped children be afforded theopportunity to participate in nonacademic and extracurricular programs to thesame extent that nonhandicapped children do. Therefore, it is recommendedthat two forms be included at all IEP proceedings.

The first form would enable the IEP team to document their consideration of allacademic and nonacademic program the: are potentially available to thehandicapped child and the extent to which the particular handicapped child willparticipate in each of those activities. (See the form entitled, "IEP Modificationfor LRE Statement: Academic and Nonacademic involvement.")

The second form is designed to provide each LEA with a general idea of the timethat each handicapped child within each disability spends in regular educationprograms. Since, section 121a.306 and Section 504 requires that handicappedchildren be afforded the same opportunities to participate as nonhandicappedchildren in terms of extracurricular and nonacademic activities, this form wouldgenerate the appropriate data to enable an LEA to evaluate it's commitment tothis aspect of the LRE doctrine. (See the form entitled, "LEA /IRE Statementin IEP: Extent of Handicapped Students Involvement in Regular EducationPrograms..)

1$

103

b) lEP,MODIFICATION FOR Lk STATEMENT:ACADEMIC AND NONACADEMIC INVOLVEMENT

Please indi sate the extent to which the handicapped child wilt be able toparticipate in regular education programs, and will be able to participate innonacademic and extracurricular activities.

Please indicate the extent of time the child participates or the extent to whichthe child is afforded the opportunity. Please indicate in times of min/hours.

NONACADEMIC/EXTRACURRICULAR

, Par tiel.

patiosAvid*,bili4v

NotAvailable

NotApplicable

Counseling Services 1111111111.Meals Mil=Athletics 11.11111111111111Assemblies IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMUIIIIIITransportation IlullHealth Services

nu ill il milli

Recreation Activities

Special Interest Group MO=Special Interest Club 11111111111.1111111Other

IIIIIII MEACADEMIC PPOGRAM

English MI= IMEArithmetic MINIMLanguage MIP. E, , MEI IIIIIIIII.History IIIIIIIIIII .,Homeficonomics 11.111111.1Shop Tyra MEMSocial Studies MEMMIOther 11111111111.1111111

103

AP-

ci LZA/LRE STATEMENT IN IEPEXTENT OFHANDICAPPED CHILD'S INVOLVEMENTIN REGULAR EDUCATION PROGRAM

How many IEP's state the extent to which the handicapped child will participatein e regular education programs? (Pitae record in percentage of total IEP's.1

I. Academic Programs

2. NonAcaoemic Programs

Note Plume Sewed All Time ih Teems of iiiiii;Move of involvement

Tow Como foe Ammo Time fee Lemma latent Semen ExtentAli Weikel:bed All fimulieseoed 166841114 Nentii %domed Nandi.

napped involved weed Involved

OISASItitY otedemienon

ovnienne immientionon

academie seedemitnee

*federate etedeinienon

medeenie

Deaf -Deaf Blind

. .

Hard of Hearing4--

Mentally RetardedMild

--..--r,

Moderate

SA).,

Multi Handicapped.

Orthopedically.

4.--

4 -.

Other Health impaired

- - - -

Seriously EmotionallyDisturbed

- , -

Speech Impaired, -

Specific LD

Visually Handicapped ,

105

ti

4. -DISTRICT SERVICE BY SEA

Section 121a.360

A state educational agency may provide direct service to handicapped childrenunder a variety of situations. As Section 121a.360, (5). indicatesNn LEA withone or more handicapped children, who can best be served by a regional or statecenter designed to meet the needs of those children, should send those childrento those services. However, in all such cases the programs and services providedby the SEA must be consistent in terms of the nature and location with the IREprovisions of the Public Law and the Regulations.

In order to insure that the SEA and LEAare consistent with the IRE doctrine.it is recommended that they provide a statement to the fact that there are noother facili*.ies, programs, or services nearer a child's home that can provide theappropriate service that the child requirei. This statement should be.placed inthe child's IEP and signed by his parents. Also the facility or program in whichthe child is placed and assigned has, as pert of its ongoing program, a series ofplacement alternatives. These program options insure that as the child improves,he will be (to the extent appropriate) integrated back into a more communitybased program.

The need tot greater interface between state programs and the community canbe seen in the case of mildly impaired children placed in the State Scho.. Manyof these children come from low incidence areas K here programs or services arenot readily ayailable. Instead of providing the necessary services at the StateSchool and then placing the children in LEA programs. the children are kept atthe institution on a full time basis. The State School could adopt the roleresidence (home) for the child and enroll him/her in the LEA schools for themajority of the day. However, this would necessitate a greater level ofcommitment and communication between the LPA and the State School inrelation to the LRE doctrine than currently exists. Therefore, it,ja recommendedthat the State Schools and the LEA's examine the IRE component-of theprograms for all children under their joint jurisdiction.

S. INSERVICE TRAININGON THE LRE DOCTRINE

Section 121a -382Section 1218-555

a) Rationale: There are several factors relating to the IRE component thatmust be adequately understood by all parties concerned in placement decisions.Without a common understanding of the doctrine', much discrepancy will exist

105106

in the implementation of the concept. The following four points represent someof the major issues that must be addressed,

The first point that must be understood by the placement team deals with thephrase, "maximum extent appropriate," Since the handicapped child should beeducated with the nonhandicapped child to the maximum, extent appropriate.the terms should be clearly defined, An operational definition of this termshould be developed and documented by each LEA to assist the placementteams in determining the adequate and appropriate setting for each child.

The next point concerns the amount of time the child is removed from regulareducation. The handicapped child should be removed horn the nonhandicappedchild only when the nature and severity of the handicapping condition precludessatisfactory placement in the regular class. At what point will the nature andseverity of a handicapped child's condition be considered extensive enough toremove that child front the regifrar classroom setting? It would seem that thispoint involves not only looking at the nature and severity of the child'shandicapping condition, but also the services an I programs available to addressthose conditions. An LEA with limited services, programs, and s'aff wilt have todefine more handicapping conditions as being too severe in nature to be found inthe regular class. This would not necessarily be due to the handicapped child'scondition as much as the LEA's inability to provide appropriate supportiveservices to the handicapped child. It will be of interest to examine the nature ofhandicapping conditions and the location of these children in terms ofplacement alternatives from one LEA to the next. It is quite possible thatdiscrepancies in placement locations of the same level of handicappingconditions will occur across LEAs. It is conceivable that the same handicappedchild could be placed in several different settings depending upon what array ofservices an LEA has available.

The third point addresses the need for an extensive program of ongsgrgsupportactivities. Provisions must be made for supplementary services (aft as aids,special class teacher contact, time off I to be porvided in conjunction thregular class placement. The nature and scope of these provisions should lw

oft clearly outlined by each LEA so that the decisions to place or not to place in the r,

regular class can be adequately determined by the placement team. Again, theconcern here is the discrepancy between LEAs in that some LEAs will have anextensive supplementary service for providing assistance to all handicappedchildren placed in a regular class setting whereas, other LEAs will have a

minimum set of support services and, as such, preclude the placement ofhandicapped children who would be able to function adequately in The regularclass.

The lark' point has to do with the child receiving services in his/her nearestcommunity (tchool. The placement of the handicapped child should be as close

1. l7%c.

107

to his/her home as possible. The decision that must be reached by the LEA andt,the placement team is at what point should changes in the locate° f programsand services be made to satisfy this component of the law? c(iteria will beused 't;) evaluate the Ibvel of implementation of the IRE concept? When wouldan L'EA,be.required to relocate a program to provide services closer to a child'shome? When jOcierthe distance factor override the program factors to necessitate

4 the relocation?

In order to address these and other questions relating to the implementation ofthe IRE component; an extensive inservice training program has to be developedby the SEA/LEA. As one indication of the SEA/LEA's commitment to the LREdoctrine, the amount of inservice in this area should be documented.

bI A ent of SEA/LEA Inservice: The following represents a series of,,,suggested questions that the A/LEA should emplof to assess the extent ofinservice in relation to the LRE:

1) Has the SEA/LEA collected information on the number of trainedprofessionals required to satisfy trie need for programs and services so thatall handicapped children can be served in the LRE closest to their homes?

2) How many LEAs have provided inservice for their staff on the problems andconcerns of the IRE doctrine? If the LEA has provided inservice in relationto the LRE doctrine, is there any documentation to indicate that theinservice session was fully evaluated and the participants achieved the statedobiecthes and goals of the training session? Please list a fevvjof theevaluation instruments utilized during the inservice sessions. (121a.382 (7))

a)

bicidi

3) Can best practices in evaluation and inservice training be identified anddisseminated thrntitih the state to insure that the highest quality of inservicetraining and evaluation have occured?

4) How were inservice needs sietermined by the SEA and the LEA in relationto the IRE doctrine? (121a.382 (1). (2))

5) Which groups within the SEA/LEA were identified for inservice training inrelation to the IRE doctrine? (Be sure to include the staff from private andpublic institutions, hospitals. and correctional programs.)

6) Describe the content and natute of the inservice training sessions.7) What geiigraphic regions were covered during the inservice sessions on LRE

(such as statewide. regional or local)?

8) How and where will the training sessions be staffed (e.g., LEA, university. orSEA personnel)?

9) How will each of the inservice programs be funded?

1076

10) What are the time frames involved in providing inservice training to meetthe SEA/LEA needs?

11) How is the LRE doctrine in relation to personnel uevelopment monitoredwithin the SEA/LEA (1218.380. 387 (c))?

12) Do institutions of higher teaming provide workshops and inservice for theIRE doctrine? If so, does the SEA/LEA have any input on the content andthe evaluation of these programs?

cl Recommendations: In order to facilitate the inservice program, the followingsuggestions are provided:

1) Cooperative Agreement: Both the SEA and the LEA inservice trainingmodels should include cooperative agreements between the local traininginstitutions, i.e., colleges and universities. By enlisting the services ofteacher training institutions, the exchange of ideas, needs, and priorities canbe pursued. This will insure that appropriate modifications in teachertraininginstitution programs are employed to address the changing and dynamicneeds of the field of education in relation to the service of programs for thehandicapped child. This would be especially the case in relation to the LREdoctrine of Public Law 94-142. All teacher-training institutions within a stateshould document what they are doing to insure that all pre.service studentsin the area of education are'being properly -and adequately exposed to theIRE concept and other components of Public Law 94-142.

2) Workshop Incentives: All workshops and inservice training provided by anSEA/LEA should provide some incentive for staff members to attend-vvithinthe district. A tentative list of incentives to be used to insure participationare a) release time, b) payment for participation, c) academic credit, d) salarystep credit or increase, el certification renewal, f) updating of professionalskills. These incentives should be made contingent upon the staff membersuccessfully completing a criterion referenced test on the workshop orinservice topiot with at least eighty to ninety percent success. Without somemeans of evaluating the effectiveness of a workshop, mere participationversus involvement could never be detected.

.3) lowly Comprehensive, Assessment: A simple means for assessing the needs,and changes occurring in the field regarding the IRE doctrine would be anannual survey within each LEA. A yearly examination and survey of allindividuals involved in the placement of handicapped children should beundertaken to insute that each 'member is aware of the number, scope. andnature of the placement options available in the LEA (1214.53301). Forexample, working knowledge should be available for all members regardin§options: a) within the LEA regular class to the self-contained school, brtheprivate day school's programs and services. c) public and private residentialschools, dl hospital progrems, el homebound programs and, correctionalfacilities. This yearly assessment of these decisionmale-1g personnel wouldinsure that they ere thoroughly knowledgeable about the placement options

available for any and all doilicapped children under their jurisdiction. Thisevaluation can take the form or a simple survey asking them to describeareas, and placement settings along the IRE continuum offered by theschool district ranging from the least to most restrictive setting.

41 Survey Sample: When there is a need for a general survey in an LEA, thesurvey should include a sample consisting of the various administrative levelswithin the district. This would insure that each level of operation providingservices directly or i :directly to the handicapped child would be adequatelyassessed. By surveying the staff at the district level, as well as buildingprincipals, regular class teachers, and special class teachers etc., one would LEable to determine the degree and the scope of possible discrepancies inknowledge, attitude, implementation and the information base in relation tothe topic of a survey. Once these discrepancies :rive identified, the LEAcould then set about rectifying any errors, misconceptionsor distortions that:lay currently viSt, causing potential problems in achieving the highest level

of implementation possible.51 Sleepage: The law requires that the SEA/LEA document their attempts to

provide appropriate personnel preparation in relation to the components ofthe Public Law. The law also requires an assessment of those personnelpreparation programs to be undertaken. There is a need to have both theSEA and the LEA develop an appropriate independent evaluation ofpersonnel training procedures and progress. It does little good for anSEA/LEA to have spent time, money, personnel and resources on workshopsand inservice training and then to have most of the information slide by as aresult of "sleepage" on the part of the staff. By "sleepage" it is meant a lackof inteiest, attention, and receptability on the part of the staff in terms ofinservice training, agenda, and topics.

It is recommended the- .tai.t. district develop some type of criterion referencetest that would cover ule nponents of each workshop and inservice trainingsession. For example, most LEA's' have some sort of 'incentive to encourageattendance and participation at appropriate workshop and inservice sessions.incentives may range from credits in terms of course work, time off fromassigned tasks. and duties to a stipend or some other means of assuring adequatestaff attendance. if a staff member were to attend the wirkshopon the IRE andthen could not ach;eve a 90% accuracy on a implesitvaktation form that coveredthe topics of the workshop, one would wonder if that individual should receiveany credit for his/her attendance. A distriCt could possibly make variousincentives, such as promotions and pay raises, contingent upon completion of anumberof successful workshops attended each year. The individual wouldreceive attendance credit only if he or she acnieved a 90% accuracy on theevaluation questionnaire based on the workshop topics.

This recommendation is generated also by the present writer's experience inrecent workshops designed to cover various components of Public Law 94-142.

109110

Many district personnel attending me workshop felt that it was not necessaryand an inconvenience on their part, even though they had been given time offfrom school for the entire day to attend. Although the general responseevaluating the workshops was very favorable and positive, many staff memberswere observed not attending, day dreaming, and even sleeping during classes.Whether or not the workshop was of value to these staff members is highlyquestionable.

Thus, some procedure should be undertaken to assure that an LEA can assess theextent to which its efforts to provide adequate and appropriate inservi, a trainingfor their staff is being realized. It is therefore recommended that the SEAendorse a formal evaluation of the workshop by the LEA to insure that at a

ninety percent comprehension level and a complete understanding of thematerial among professional staff has occurred as a result of the workshop,

6. PARENTAL CONSENT AND THE LRE

Section 1213.500-514Section 121a.382 (f). (3)

a)Parentel Knowledge of the LRE: To insure that there is An effective parentalinput and knowledge base in relation to the LRE doctrine and the decisionmaking process in terms of placement for handicapped children, a district shouldimplement steps to insure that the parents are adequately informed. The parentsmust be knowledgeable of their rights in relation to the letter of the tawregarding the LRE doctrine, as well as, the intent or the spirit of the law. Theparent must be informed about the range of alternative placements found in theLEA so as to insure that his or her handicapped child is placed in the mostappropriate setting, Data can be generated to indicate the LEA'S efforts toinform parents. Suggested data points could include:

1) name and number of any and all parent advocacy groups for the handicappedchild who are actively involved in the LEA programs and services.

2) documentation of all such steps undertaken by the LEA to inform theparents of program alternatives in relation to the IRE doctrine (such as PTAmeetings),

3) a list of publications, newspaper articles, and other printed materials availableto the public, in general, and the parents, in particular, regarding the IREdoctrine.

As the above information is documented, the district should regularly assess thelevel and quality of information that the parents have in relation to the IREdoctrine.

111

b) Surrogate Parent: Since the surrogate parent (Section 1218.514, (e). (1)) willrepresent the child in all matters relating to identific: on, evaluation, andeducational placement of the child, it is imperative that this individual becompetent enough to adequately represent the child. If surrogate parents areprovided for handicapped children and are not knowledgeable of keycomporients of the ,law (in particular the LRE doctrine), their ability to insurethat the handicapped child is placed in the least restrictive setting Will be greatlyhindered. It would seem necessary that the LEA insure that each and everyindividual involved in the LRE process have a thorough knowledge andkmderstanding of the doctrine if the doctrine and the intent of the law are everto be fully satisfied.

Assuming all the other requirements for the selection of the surrogate parent hadbeen met, it would seem appropriate to periodically examine the surrogateparent in relation to the IRE doctrine. This evaluation of their knowledge andunderstanding of the LRE doctrine and level of implementation within the LEAwill inwrit that -ttleV*represent the handicapped child in a fair and appropriatemanner.

There should be a form that states that a parent (surrogate) is both aware and.understands the responsibility of the LEA in relation to the IRE doctrine. Thisform would help to insure that the LEA would develop appropriate justificationand rationales for all programs, services, and placement settings for allhandicapped within its jurisdiction.

r.c) Parental Awareness Form: Section 121a.382 (I) (3)

instructions:Please be sure that you are able to answer each quest in clearly, :f not, pleasesee the representative in the LEA.

1,1 What rationale is provided by the LEA for the removal of your child fromthe regular Education setting?

2) Is the placement of your child determined at least annually? If not why?

3) Was your child placed in a particular setting and evaluated to insure that itwas " appropriate"? If so, how was the evaluation completed? If not, whynot

4) Is your child's placement at- rrograms provided in the nearest communityschool? If not, why not

5) Are the placement alieinatives that were considered for your child'splacement documented for your review?

112

-6) Does the LEA have a general model of the placement alternatives availableacross the IRE continuum? ,

7) Does- the LEA have an agreement for active monitoring and evaluation of allchildren placed outside the LEA? If so. have you examined it in relation toyour child?

8) Are programs and services provided your child in settings closett to theregular education environment possible? If so. how is that determined? Ifnot. tvhy not

9) Does your child participate in any nonacademic and/or extracurricularactivities with the LEA? If not, why not? If so, how extensive?

10) Did you actively participate in the placement decision for your child?

11) Who ate the teacher(s) working with your child?

7. PLACEMENT PROCEDURES

Section 121..533 (a), (1), (2)

a) Appropriate LRE Placement Two forms are present' blow to ass4ist theplacement team in their efforts to adequately assess the .ndicapped child. Theproposed 'orms not only serve to assist in the initial placement decisioh,but canbe used to determine the ongoing appropriateness of the plittement (seeQualitative Aspects of Placement Procedures). These forms ca/o/ be expandedthrough field testing to include specific questions related, to only certaindisabilities, as well as. more general questions to address the entire handicappingspectrum. The present writer had considered a weighted a4proach of the itemson the checklist, but felt that the uniqueness of each child and placementoptions would preclude a weighted approach at this pine.

The first form was developed by Nix (1978) and consisted of an extensivechecklist of child and environmental pefaineters that a placement team shouldconsider. Although Nix was writing'-or the hearingimpaired child, the samebasic questions can be employed/with all handicapping conditions. (Please see:

Appropriate Placement "elf iist for the Handicapped Child Form).

The second form,. consists of a more specific behavioral checklist that wasdeveloped by Voh Seggern (1977). It will assist placement teams in exploring therange and nature of behaviors of a handicapped child. (Please see: BehaviorChecklist For Determining Appropriateness of Placement Form).

113

b) Appropriate LFtE Placement Checklist For The Handicapped ChildForm:

This check sheet has been compiled from various sources and is intended to be aguide in examining the Major parameters which contribute to a successful LREplacement. Some of the pearneters are critical and must essentially be high or asuccessful placement will not be achieved. The assets and deficits identified byusing the list will provide the placement team with additional input forconsideration in arriving at the placement decision appropriate to the child'sneeds.

1) Child Parameters:Average or better learning rateAble to comprehend oral directionsAble to read and follow written directionsCapacity to work independentlyWillingness to ask questions for clarificationCapable of followirg large grouo discussionsCooperative in completing small homework assignmentsAge minimally disparate from hearing peersLinguistic age comparable to placement consideredSocial developo-ent comparable to the placement consideredEmotional deigioprtient comparable to placement consideredPhysical deyalopment\arithin a normal range for the placement consideredReading level comparable to the children in placementAcademic skills within one grade level of the considered placementAverage or better irtint ence

Appropriate aMplificationAverage or better in self-contrAbility to adapt to newsituational demands, schedule changes. etc.AcademicitompetitineksRelates Well to adult. \ti

Relates xvell to peersWants to be mainstreamed \Average ability to handle abs\ract conceptsSufficient speech intelligibilitYkto be understood by peersSufficient speech intenigibilityto be underst2od by regular class teacherAffinity to receptively decode spaechWrites legibly

2) Placement Situation Parameters:Size of the receiving classDesire of the regular class teacher to 'ffiave the childLocation of the classroom (next to di! distraction).4 Individualized programing in the receiving classroom

11113

illia.101

Smell reading groups,Teething style(s) of OP regular class teacher(%)

Availability of a speck .ducation teacher to monitor the placementOrientation to child's special needs available to regular class andteacher

Supportive administrationTeacher aide available for assistanceAvailability of varied resource specialists speech pathologist.audiologist, etc.

Preferential seating possiblealii Regular class teacher willing to use Modified materials for child.114 Regular class teacher adapts listening posts, etc so the same

information is presented orally to the hearing-impaired childRegular class teacher willing to work closely with parents of thechild and the various support and resource specialists

Can the child get an equal or better education in this class than inthe otheci possible placement alternatives

3) Family Parameters:Stable home environmentParents' desire to have the child mainstreamedParents' desire to assist the child with homeworkParents' acceptance of the child's disabilityParents have enrolled in parent education or are willipg to do soParents' desire to work closely with the regular clas%'teacher

c) Behavior Checklist for Determining Appropriateness of Placement Form:

Name of Student

Viallamb

)

1. Quarrelsome, loses temper, fights2. Domineering talk3. Resentment of authority4. Bullies younger children5. Bragging6. Pushing. hitting. slapping7. Destructive tendencies8. Quick movements9. Showing of extreme cruelty to animals

10. Disrupts class11. Wants his own way12. Sassy13. Lies and/or steals14. Timid15. Hesitant in trying new ideas

115

Date

114

16. Rarely fights back17..Hardly ever disagrees with group opinion18. Easily frightened19, Cries easily and whines20. Sometimes referred to by others as a sissy21. Used as a scapegoat by other children22. Has a few real companions

23. Teachers may hardly recognize he is in the room24. Shuns contact with other children25. Isn't chosen by the group as a member of committees and teams26. Walks to and from school alone27. Would rather stay inside than go out and play at recess28. Tires easily29. Too quiet or good30, Shy or timid31. Will find things to do to avoid being with the group32. May spend time perfecting a skill33. May prefer to associate with adults34. Is sullen, unhappy or worried35. Poor self concept36. Is easily hurt or discouraged

37. Refuses to do as asked38. Denies obvious truths39. Short attention span40. Lack of tolerance for tasks not enjoyed41. Cannot wait or take turns42. Demands immediate rewards or help43. Leaves group or class (walks out, "sick')44. Low frustration tolerance (gives up easily)45. Does not work with group46. Over-conforms to rules47. Seeks attention excessively48. Cannot work alone49. Easily confused or disoriented50. Forgetful, needs constaht reminders51. Overly sensitive to critiOsm52. Shows signs of anxiety (lifying, nail biting)53. Puts blame for behavior on external causes54., Hurries through work55. Works too slowly ,4

56. Cannot follow simple directions57. Easily distracted from work58, Difficulty changing activities59. Relationships with other children are a frequent problem60. Relationships with adults are a frequent problem

115116

Behaviors exhibited most frequently

4.111MINIA.M.11111,

morningafternoonafter a class changein a large groupin a small groupwith peers

.111 mid-daybefore a class change

(to playground, lunch, class, etc.)before a specific subjectwith the teacherts)

8. CLOSEST COMMUNITY SCHOOL

Section 1218.552 (a). (3). (c)

a) Rationale: One component of the IRE doctrine is that all children should bereceiving services in programs found in the nearest school to their home. Section121a.552 (a), (3), (c) states that, unless the handicapped child's IEP requiressome other arrangement, the child should be educated in a school which he orshe would normally attend if not handicapped. "Normally" refers to the existinglegally approved method for assigning children to their respective schools.Therefore, a form is needed to document the number of children receivingprograms outside the boundaries of their most immediate school. The schoolshould report this information by disability and age breakout.

The form suggested here was designed to enable the LEA to assess the extent towhich the handicapped children under its jurisdiction are receiving those specialservices and Programs in the setting nearest their community school. Nojudgment is made as to the appropriateness of the placement or whether theplacement is ',more or less restrictive for the child. However, it is recommendedthat a systematic examination of all handicapped children, not found in thenearest community school, be undertaken. This assessment should determine ifmodifications in existing programs, staff, services, etc. can be made to facilitatesteps towards the intent of the IRE doctrine which is the education of allhandicapped children in the nearest community school. It is also suggested thatthe LEA provide a rationale as to why programs and services are not providedfor then children in a more convenient setting closer to their home.

The information generated from these individual assessments of the location ofservices and programs for the handicapped can be used for future planning ofresources and programs to insure that ail handicapped children are educated in asetting as close to their home as possible. (Please refer to the form entitledNearest Location Form.)

116117

Date

Unit Name

b) NEPREST LOCATION FORM

INSTRUCTIONS: Please complete the foilowino form on ail handicapped children from your LEA to determinethe basic distribution of handicapped children in relation to their programs and services.

No. ofHandicapped

Children

School/ProgramProvided atNearest to

Child's Horne

School/ProgramWithin

Sway LEA

School /ProgramWithin

Next LEA

Same State Out of Stet* Other

Disability 34 4.17 1621 34 647 1621 34 617 13.21 3.5 617 laMil1111111.11111111111

647 01;11 617 MI1) Dee

21 Deaf Send IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII3) Hard of Hearin§

4) Mentally MMeldtd.

11151 Multi Handicapped ..--....,

0 Orthopedically Impaired

7) Other Health Impaired. .

1 Seriously EmotionallyDisturbed

0 Specific LearningOity10) Speech Impaired

.--

11) Visually elandicappad .

c1 Program Location Within An LEA: Those LEAs that have all handicappedchildren in special education programs closest to their neighborhood schoolswould at the same time be satisfying the letter and the spirit of the law becauseto accomplish such a task would require an extensive effort in the commitmentof the LEA. Therefore, another form that may be useful for an LEA would beone which examined the existing programs and services within the school forpossible, redistribution of efforts to be consistent with nearest locationrequirements.

The interest in this form was stimulated by the efforts of a local school districtwhich is currertly examining their programs and services, They have decidedthat an existing EMR High School Program with four staff members and 30students could easily be divided between the two district high schools. Thiswould enable all of the students to attend a school program nearest their home.

This form would also indicate how many placement settings an LEA hasavailable for each progiam, as well as, the number of students in each setting, hewould enable the LEA to determine what alternative settings they may have aswell as the number of students in each setting.

1) Instructions for Program Location Within LEA Form:

a) List all the schools in the LEA and all programs and services forhandicapped students within each setting.

b) For each program /service, please record the number of handicappedstudents by disability being served.

c) How many of those handicapped students within each setting are notattending their nearest community school?

d) How many program/services at each, location can be relocatedgeographically within the LEA to enable the student to attend a schoolnearer his/her home? For example, if an elementary school has two EMRclassrooms, could one of those programs be relocated in a school closer toa child's home? (Please refer to the form entitled Program LocationWithin LEA).

119

i1

2) PROGRAM LOCAltiisZibliM

Pleseeeornplete the foliewilii tom with the required information

Numbs, of lendicapped children by disability not comatly *sanding themow eadanunity school.

Wheals le tiAweeewolleMear

1

b

xj

1

i

I i1

I

I,Iii

t.01I.

.

II.

1

COMMENTS: Whatstet ten be taken toinane the all ho.cii.bellbed children areetletseted in the manammonite school/

.

Peoerami1

a,

3...\--

.. -

Settee l II,

, .

Problems1

2 a....4...

.3 ,

9. QUALITATIVE ASP9TS OF THE IRE PLACEMENT

Section 1218.552 (d )

a) Complexity of Assessing Placement Procedures: The complexity of the IREconcept is most apparent in determining the appropriateness of a particularplacement for a handicapped child. Although, every placement decision has.toconsider the approprianess of the placement in relation to the proximity of thechild's nearest cornrnurilty school and the overall involvement of the child'sregular education programs, it is most difficult to assess tha appropriateness interms of what is and is not harmful for the child. (See section 12141.552 (d)).What factor or combination of factors determine the appropriateness of aplacement setting will vary with each child. An example of the potentialcomplexity can be seen in the following situation.

What procedure would a placement team follow in trying to determine thelocation of services to an EMR child with the mental age of 7 and thechronological age of 10? Would placing this child in a second grade class forreading be more or less restrictive than placing him in the resource room or aself-contained class for the same reading instruction? The case seems to highlightdifferent interietations that are possible in determining the least restrictiveenvironment. The placement of a child in a classroom with second graders, eventhough he is capable of performing the required reading tasks, may be morerestrictive due to the psychological factors involved in a 10 year old sitting inclasses with seven year olds. However, if the EMR could satisfactorily adjust tosuch a difference in size and age to the point where his performance in readingwould not be hindered, the placement could be considered appropriate. TheProblem arises in how to determine that a particular placement decision isappropriate for the child.

Implementing this phase of the IRE doctrine is no easy task. however, to insurethat an LEA is moving in the proper direction, a proposed model has beendeveloped that will highlight the general procedure to be employed in makingand assessing the appropriateness of placements for each handicapped child. Ageneral model for consideration is presented below.

b) LRE Appropriate Placement Modal: The overall procedure for a placementmodel should consist of three phases with each phase containing a series ofprogressive steps for making the placement decision and assessing itsappropriateness.

1) PHASE A:Step I The handicapped child's placement is taken under consideration.Step 2 The placement teamilEP team examines all existing evaluationdata that was generated about the handicapped child. This evaluation data,

121

I.

shoUld provide the placement team withappropriate levels of functioningin both the sodal and academic arias, as well as. any other pertinent arerelated to the handicapped.Step 3 To supplement the !valuation data, the team would thencomplete a series of check lists outlining in detail the behavior of a child,the environmental perimeters best suited to the child, and so forth. {SeeAppropriate IRE Checklist Forms Below)Step 4 With the evaluation data and the check list completed, theplacement team will then begin to match the handicapped child's profilewith the appropriate placement options along the IRE continuum.Step $ All placement options that were considered potential settings forthe handicapped child will be documented.Step 6 A rationale will then be developed justifying the actualplacement decision.Step 7 An assessment of the potential problems found within theplacement setting will then be undertaken by the placement team. Theproblems such at scheduling, transportation, teacher receptivity, and soforth will be examined.Step 8 The IRE placement will be finalized by the placement team.

Once the placement has been determined, the team will then proceed to Phase Bof the Placement Procedures.

2) PHASE 8: Phase B will consist of the initial attainment and theprocedures to be followed to determine the appropriateness of the actualpi:cement determined by the placement team.

Step 1 The placement team will establish a committee that will serve asa transition/monitoring team of the child's progress in the particularsetting where he is receiving services.Step 2 The tfansition/monitoring team will then coordinate all supportsystems needed to insure that the placement will be successful. Theemployment of paraprofessionals, the involvement of special educationteachers, inservice training needs, the establishment of communicationchannels, and cocanseling for the child, teacher, and parents, will beaddressed.Scarp 3 The transition/monitoring team will than assess the placement ofthe handicapped child. The time line for determining placement will varyfor each handicapped child. It is recommended that at the end of the firstweek and at the end of the first month a general assessment of thrioappropriateness of a placement be undertaken. This assessment shouldconsist of the following areas: teacher reports, behavioral checklists, directobservation of the Child. academic progress, social end emotional growth.parental input. and so forth.Step 4 Depending on the results of the initial assessment comoletvd bythe transition/monitoring team, the placement will be judged as beingeither adequate or inadequate. If the decision is that the placement is

121122

inadequate, the procedure is then repeated going back to' the-initialexamination of evaluation data. This would necessitate another initialplacement team meeting and/or a reevaluation of the child's *ills andabilities by the placement team. If the placement was deemed appropriate.then the child would be allowed to continue in that setting with periodiccheckups every four weeks.Step 5 If the child continues to progress and the assessment teamdetermines that the placement is adequate, then the, transition shouldmove into Phase C.

3) PHASE C: Phase C consists of the long term assessment of the child'sprogress.

Step 1 This step will consist of a continual and gradual modification ofthe support program needed to insure the continued success of the,handicapped child in his particular setting. It is expected that as a childcontinues to progress in his placement setting the scope and intensity ofthe support system will be reduced significantly.Step 2 The evaluation of the long term growth of the social, academic,and motor areas of the child is important. It includes examining over timeany changes in teacher attitudes, peer interaction, parental input, anddirect observation of the child in the particular setting.Step '3 This step will consist of an assessment of the long termappropriateness of a particular setting. If the setting is deemed to beappropriate, the child wilt continue in that setting under the outline ofPhase C. However, if the placement appears to be inadequate as a result ofimprovements and/or changes in the child, then the child will be recycledback to the examination level of Phase A. And the cycle will begin rain.

a Field Testing: Since the above model will represent a general prototype ofthe process that an LEA should follow in assessing the appropriateness ofplacement procedures, it is recommended that each LEA actually field test itsmodel to insure that the process is both reliable and 'valid. It is recommendedthat each LEA monitor the placement decisions for all handicapped children.This monitoring can be accomplished by a systematic examination of the initialsuccess and failures of handicapped children placed in, what was determined asthe least restrictive environment. A case study approach of selected cases wouldinsure: documentation and insights into key factors that may be causing theobserved results. It will be a complex task for example, tpliscriminate betweenadministrative arrangements that are causing failures and the inability of certainchildren to function adequately in a particular setting due to some Condition

4Sated to being handicapped. However, time and appropriate documentationI assure a higher, more qualitative, placement procedure for all handicapped

ran within an LEA. The complexities involved in dealing with individualhandicapped children and their unique characteristics, as well as, tiling to matchtheir characteristics with a complex IRE continuum and insure that a particularsetting is appropriate will be no easy task.

\ ,.

133 122

stPHASE A

Child PlacementConsidered J.

IEltioni (MIMI qf EvaluationDate to Determine Level offunctioning StoicAcademic, etc.

d) LRE APPROPRIATE PLACEMENT

PROPOSED MODEL

PHASE 8 PHASE C

Fconoet.Behavioral risk tai

Document All PlacementOptions Considered

IRational. Devel601111&.Initial Placement

I

Anew Potential Prablenu ofScheduling. Transportetion,Teacher RecePtivilk.

LRE PlitementJ1

Establish TransitionMonitoring Team

Coordinate Support Systemto Supplement PlacementDecision. Plan for Use OfAide. Spacial &Soudan'Teachers. InGervice, Corn.munication Channels, Coumsellea for Child, Teacher, Parent

Team Asesetsvient of Place.aunt. Teacher ReportsChecklist. Observation ACM

*retie Proves, Social!Emotional Growth, Pat*fttilInput. etc.

Ise

Placement PlacementAdequate Inadequate

ReAseem Monthly .

Continue Support ProoraniModify it Needed

IEynon, Growth of Social.Academic Motor: TankerAttitude Peer Interaction.Parent Input Observation.,

PlacementAdetwatir

PlacementInadequate

BEST COPY AVAILAII!

e) Components of the Model: Several, factors must be operating in order for theproposed model to function effectively. Among these are:

1) 'The regular class teacher's attitudes and expectations towards the IREdoctrine must be positive.2) A meaningful intra- and inter-staff cooperation at the building,level mustexist.3) Any inhibiting agents within the LRE process must be eliminated.4) The ability to assess the harmful effects of placement on the handicappedchild must be accomplished.

1) Regular Class Teacher Attitudes and Expectations:Since the LRE concept most directly involves the relocation of handicappedchildren from one class or program to another, it is essential that there is goodintra and inter-staff cooperation. All parties involved in the delivery of servicesto a particular handicapped child should be active participants in the decisionmaking process regarding the location and the placement of that chId. However,the current state cf the art may preclude this from occurring.

A recent survey (Aloia, Minner, Knutson and Von Seggern, 1977) indicated that:a) the general commitment to and the understanding of the LRE conceptvaries significantly within the LEA and b) many school administrators havefailed to provide direction and/or proper incentives to their staff to facilitatemovement towards the IRE doctrine. Therefore, any meaningful attempts toprovide children with less restrictive settings in both the letter and the spirit ofthe law should take into account the realities of the political, social. andprofessional climate within the LEA/school.

The survey also highlighted the position of regular class teachers indicating that abuilt in inertia exists (i.e., resistance, ignorance, or apathy) which will result indenying a handicappAd child a less restrictive placement. That is, if a regular classteacher does not want a handicapped child in hisiher class for one of manyreasons (e.g.. lack of experience with handicapped children, unwillingness toextend possible variations in skill levels, both social and academic, in theclassroom, and so forth), then almosV by definition, that particular classroomsetting, curriculum area, or Program wbutd be more restrictive for thehandicapped child than a self-contained class where the affect of the staff wasmore positive. Likewise, the same result would be found if special educationstaffs were also resistant to changes relating to the LRE concept. (Note: Thesurvey indicated that the special education staff exhibited various forms ofresistance, e.g., protection of their territory, maintenance of the status quo,unfamiliarity with new roles as liaisons for regular education, or entrenched intheir ways).

These underlying concerns will severely limit the realization of the spirit of the

126

LRE doctrine. Handicapped children will be denied a less restrictive setting dueMOM to the restrictive nature of the environment rather than the child's abilityto excel! in that environment. All these factors and others must be addressed inorder to insure that a qualitative improvement towards the spirit of the LREdoctrine actually occurs.

a) Rationale: One phase of assessing the level of readiness within an LEA andthe potential harmful effects on a child is the receptiveness of the regular classteacher. How willing are the regular class teachers to accept handicappedchildren within their classroorri?The greeter the qualitative implementation ofthe LRE doctrine. the greater the regular class teacher's ,receptivity. A goodindication of Zh would be their initial expectations, both positive and negative,regarding handicapped children being placed in their classroom. It would beuseful to obtain an initial indication of the receptivity of the teachers towards aParticular handicapped child. For example, if a particular handicapped childcould be placed within a regular classroom 'program and the placement team hadthree potential classrooms and teachers available, it would be important to havesome measure of the teacher's initial attitudes towards this placement.

Other than the personal interview which may be somewhat biased due to thePotential social and professional pressures involved, an objective criterionmeasure would be valuable for several reasons: a) It would distinguish betweenthe teachers who are and are not receptive, in general, towards handicappedchildren, la) It would distinguish between teachers and their receptivity inrelation to a particular handicapped child. and c) It would enable objectivefeedback to be provided to the staff involved in making the initial placement ofthe handicapped child.

This writer has developed an instrument to measure the initial expectations ofthe regular class teachers towards mainstreamed handicapped children (Alois,1976). The instrument consists of four subscales that measure: ti) the teacher'sinitial expectations regarding the handicapped child's initial academic potential,behavioral potential in the classroom, as well as, the teacher's ability to workeffectively with the handicapped child, and b) the teacher's overall generalimpression of the child. The instrument would be administered by having ateacher read a small vignette describing a particular child. (Of course, allpersonally identifiable data would be removed to insumthe confidentiality ofthe child). After reading the vignette, the teacher would then respond to a seriesof questions regarding the child's academic and behavioral traits. Once the scoreswere tallied, the staff could then turn to some normative scales to rank theteacher. (The normative scales could be developed from the more than 2000responses to data of scorers of previous teachers responding to the instrument.)This ranking would give the committee some idea of the positive and negativeattitudes and initial expectations of a particular teacher towards a particularchild.

,125 126

The placement to could then use the information as one criterion fordetermining wh placement with a particular teacher would be appropriatefor the handi ped child. The information could also be used to plot changes inteacher ri udes towards the handicappt.d child overtime. The teacher could begiven the test after initially working with the child over a period of a week, two_weals, or a month for possible changes in their attitude towards the child. If the

." instrument initially proved to have good predictive validity, then it couldbe: a) used as a means for determining the appropriateness of a particularPlacement after one, two, or four weeks of a child in that setting, b) givenon adistrict wide basis to determine a ranking of teachers who would be most andleast receptive initially to handicapped children being placed in theirclassrooms. c) used to indicate possible changes in initial expectations inattitudes over time on a districtwide basis as a result of experience withhandicapped children, inservice training, workshops and the like sponsored bythe district.

To date, much work is still required to adequately field test the instrument onthe teacher popItlations. It is recommended that further testing and inservice use

of-The instrument be carried out by the Bureau and by selective units in thefield. This investigator had tentatively acquired permission to field test thisinstrument in three local districts, but time limitation on the existing paperprecluded such efforts.

(Please reel to the form entitled The Teacher Expcztations Form.)

b) Teacher Expectation Form Response Booklet:Before reading the instructions for completing the form, please fill in thefollowing background information:

MALE: FEMALE:

Years of professional teaching experience:Have you ever taught a special education class? Yes No_Have you ever taught children with special needs in the regular class setting?Yes No If so, how many years.Credentials held: General Elementary Special EducationOther (specify)Check highest degree: Bachelor's_ Master's DoctorateCurrent teething assignment:

I2127

;1.

TEACHER EXPECTATIONS FORMInstructions:

Below you will find a description of a child who is being considered forplacement in your classroom; please read the description very ca;fully. Afterreading the information you will be asked to evaluate how you f I that childwill function within your classroom. You are asked to evaluate osaqh statementbased on the information provided you and from your past experienges.

It is possible that.you may not find all the information within the vignette thatyou would like in order to respond knoWledgeably to certain items{ However,since many teaching decisions are made wtih only limited information, you areasked to use your best judgment based on what information is provided.

Please ,J your response to each statement on the following Pages bycircling the rating that corresponds to the degree to which you agree ordisagreewith the statement.

EXAMPLE:

It is cold in Alaska in the winter.

Strongly Disagree Slightly Slightly AgreeDisagree Disagree Agree

The individual in this example considers Alaska to be very cold in the winter andso has circled the response that indicates a position of strong agreement with thestatement.

Remember, both questionnaires that follow will refer to your evaluations ofhaving a child like the one described below in your classroom. Even thoughyou

1may not actually t ach in a classroom at the age level of the child, Om assumefor the moment t at you do and respond to each item accordingly.

t

The informatiog found in the vignette has been compiled from the child's pastschool records,ihis teacher reports and psychological evaluations.

Please respond to all questions.

CHILD INFORMATION

All pertinent information relating to the child and placement will be presentedhere.

CHILD RELATED INFORMATION IS PLACED HERE.

12$

127 0.00000.4". ,

g

NOTE: 9e sure torread the questions and response choices very irefully.

1. de level reading materials will be too difficult for this child.

Strongly Disagree Slightly Slightly Agree StronglyDisagree Disagree Agree Agree

i. This child is not capable of doing independent reading required to completeschool assignments.

1-

Strongly Agree Slightly Slightly Disagree StronglyAgrt.ba Agree Disagree Disagree

3. This child will be aggressive with other children in order to get his way.Strongly Disagree Slightly Slightly Agree StronglyDisagree Disagree Agree Agree

4. This child will be accepted by his classmates during classroom projects.Strongly Agree Slightly Slightly Disagree StronglyAgree Agree Disagree Disagree-

5. This child will nrt respect authority.

Strongly Disagree Slightly Slightly Agree StronglyDisagree Disagree Agree Agree

6. This child does not appear to have a happy home life.

Strongly Agree Slightly Slightly Disagree Strongly"Agree Agree Disagree Disagree

7. This child will not maintain satisfactory atten_d_encelecords during theschool year.

Strongly Disagree Slightly Slightly Agree StronglyDisagree Disagree Agree Agree

8. This child will be better off in a one-tone teaching situation.

Strongly Agree Slightly Slightly Disagree StronglyAgree Agree, Disagree Disagree

9. This child will accept constructive criticism from the teacher.

Strongly Disagree Slightly Slightly Agree StronglyDisagree Disagree Agree Agree

18. This child will not be able to maintain attention throughout the day onassigned classroom tasks.

Strongly Agree Slightly Slightly Disagree StronglyAgree Agree Disagree Disagree

121 128

11. 8111440f problems wilt increase among the other children wii this child inyour classroom.

Strongly Disagree Slightly Slightly Agree ng YDisagree Disagree Agree Agree

12. This child will be cooperative and epjoyr----vorking with other students.

Strongly Agre_e_____,SIthily Slightly Disagise StronglyAgee* Agree Disagree Disagree

yJ

12.1n-your classroom, this child will be capable of paling grades in all subjects.

Strongly Disagree Slightly Slightly 1 Agree StronglyDisagree Disagree Agree / Agree

14. This child's behavior will serve as a good model for other

Disagree

Strongly Agree Slightly Slightly Disagree StronglyAgree Agree Disagree

16. This child will have difficulty expressing himself verbally.Strongly Disagree Slightly Slightly Agree StronglyDisagree Disagree Agree Agree

18. This child will need a highly structured raard system, i.e., candy,tokens, etc., to survive in your classroom.

Strongly Agree 'Slightly Slightly Disagree StronglyAgree Agree Disagree Disagree

17. Your past training will enable you to effectively teach this child.

Strongly Disagree Slightly Slightly Agree StronglyDisagree Disagree Agree Agree

18. This child will make normal progress, andeidvance at least one grade levelthroughout the school .year in your classroom.

Strongly Agree Slightly Slightly Disagree StronglyAgree Awe* Disagree Disagree

19. This child will not make friends irony.

Strongly Disagree Slightly Slightly Agree StronglyDisagree Disagree Agree Agree

20, This child will easily be discouraged in academic tasks if they are toochallenging.

Strongly Agree Slightly Slightly Disagree StronglyAgree Agree Disagree Disagree

12a

21. This child will dress neatly and cleanly.

Strongly Disagree Slightly Slightly Agree StronglyDisagree Disagree Agree Agree

22. This child can be trusted.

Strongly Agree Slightly Slightly Disagree StronglyAgree Agree Disagree Disagree

23. This child should not be assigned to my class.

Strongly Disagree Slightly Sightly Agree StronglyDisagree Disagree Agree Agree

24. Gerdes will be an effective reward with this child,

Strongly Agree Slightly Slightly Disagree StronglyAgiee Agree Disagree Disagree

2$. This child will need remedial assistance from a resource room or otheroutside help.

Strongly Disagree Slightly Slightly Agree StronglyDisagree Disagree Agree Agree

26. Your past experience will enable you to effectively teach this child.

Strongly Agree Slightly Slightly Disagree StronglyAgree Agree Disagree Disagree

27. Verbal reprimands will not be an effective metrisof Controlling Nits child'sbehavior.

Strongly Disagree Slightly Slightly Agree StronglyDisagree Disagree Agree Agree

28. This child's homework assignments will not be turned in neatly andpunctually.

Strongly Disagree Slightly Slightly Agree StronglyDisagree Disagree Agree Agree

29. This child appears to haves good personality.

Strongly Agree Slightly Slightly Disagree StronglyAgree Agree Disagree Disagree

30. This child will be courteous towards the teacher.

Strongly Disagree Slightly Slightly Agree StronglyDisagree Disagree Agree Agree

130131

31, This child will be poorly motivated in school work.

Strongly Agree Slightly Slightly Disagree StronglyAgree Agree Disagree Disagree

32. This child does not receive adequate motivation for school at horn*.Strtngly Disagree Slightly Slightly Agree StronglyDisk Disagree Agree Agree

33. This child will Lie acceVed by his peers when involved in athletic events andgames, such as baseball, fwtball, etc.

StronglyAgree

Agree Slightly Slightly DisagreeAgree Disagree

StronglyDisagree

34, This child's, seem to be concerned about his school progress.

Strongly Disagree Slightly Slightly AgreeDisagree Disagree Agree

StronglyAgree

35. This child will need help on tasks requiring minimal writing abilities.StronglyAgree

Agree Slightly Slightly Disagree StronglyAgree Disagree Disagree

36. More time than usual will be needed to control thi4 child's behavior in yourclassroom.

Strongly Disagree Slightly Slightly Agree StronglyDisagree Disagree Agree Agree

NOTE: For the next four questions pease circle-the-1 attar_that-eorresponds mostclosely to how you perceive this child.

37. The child's 10 appears to be:(a) (b) (c)

Below 50 50-70 71.90id) te)

91-100 101.115 116-130 130+

3B. What do you estimate is the highest occupational potential of this child?

a. Could never hold a jobb. Unskilled work in a sheltered workshopc. Unskilled factoryd. Semi-skillede. Skilled and trained work1. Supervisory positiong. Professional position

131 132

3B. What do you estimate isthehighest educational potential of this child?a. Jr. high school or 8th gradeb. Finish some high schoolc. Graduate from high schoold. Attend post high school other than collegee. Attend college or Jr. collegef. Graduate from collegeg. Post graduate school and professional training

40. In your judgment, what should be this child's plaCement?

a. Special class all day: separated from the normal school buildingsand grounds

b. Special den all day but on school grounds so that the childmay interact with other students in the school

c. Special class or resource room all or most of the dayd. Regular class part of the day with resource room helpe. Regular class all day with auxiliary materiels to aid learningf. Regular class all dayg. Classes for mentally gifted students

NOTE: THE SERIES OF ADJECTIVES LISTED BELOW REFER TO THECHILD YOU HAVE BEEN EVALUATING. PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVEFROM EACH SET THAT MOST CLOSELY DESCRIBES HOW YOU PERCEIVETHE CHILD. BE SURE TO RESPOND TO EACH OF THE 14 SETS OFADJECTIVES.

1. Very Fairly Fairly VeryUnpleasant Unpleasant Have No Idea Pleasant Pleasant

2. Very Fairly Fairly VeryCompetent Competent Have No Idea Incompetent Incompetent

3. Very Fairly Fairly VeryCold Cold Have No Idea Warm Warm

4. Very Fairly Fairly VeryAttractive Attractive Have No Idea Unattractive Unattractive

5. Very Fairly Fairly VeryBright Bright Have No Idea Dull Dull

6. Very Fairly Fairly VeryHelpless Helpless Have No Idea Capable Capable

7. Very Fairly Fairly VeryNormal Normal Have No Idea Abnormal Abnormal

8. Very Fairly Fairly VeryDistractible Distractible Have No Ides Attentive Attentive

. .

9. Very Fairly Fairly VerySkillful Skillful Have No Idea Clumsy Clumsy

10. Very Fairly Fairly VeryImpulsive Impulsive Have No Idea Self-controlled Self-controlled

11. Very Fairly Fairly VeryNeat Nest Have No Idea Sloppy Sloppy

12, Very Fairly Fairly VeryExcitable Excitable Have No Idea Apathetic Apathetic

13. Very Fairly Fairly VeryInactive Inactive Have No Idea Active Active

14. Very Fairly Fairly VerySilly Silly Have No Idea Sensible Sensible

This subscale was developed by Guskin (1963) and incorporated into the generalsurvey instrument.

4

133134

2) Infra and Inter Cr Onseetion:The need for increased cooperation among the staff and involvement of allindividuals in the developnwnt of the handicapped child's program is outlined byYoshida, Fenton, Maxwell and Kaufman, (1917) who highlighted theimportance of teachers involved with the handicapped child taking theresponsibility for developing and implementing programs for those handicappedchildren. The LRE doctrine, as well as, other components of Public Law 94442,involve innovation and changes within the school system and its's basicorganization. There are some suggestions presented b, Burns (1971) that applyto the implementation of the new law, in general, and especially the LREdoctrino. These suggestions could facilitate qualitative improvements towardsthe realization of the LRE concept. Some of Bums' suggestions are presentedbelow and have been modified to reflect the specifics of the law.

a) Work initially with the small select staff.b) Try to select a team of interested and interrelated persons.c) Select a project that can be initially handled. Often a small project should be

the first step.d) Hold frequent but short meetings, requiring only those directly involved with

the child's program to attend. These frequent meetings prevent minorproblems from growing into major problems, as well as, allow many problemsto solve themselves.

e) Reward the team involved, Give incentives for those who take initiative interms of serving the handicapped within the school.

A Fix clear responsibilities for all members involved in the efforts.g) Set definite time limits on all aspects of the project.h) Establish short term goals that can be easily measured to determined if

success has been achieved.

I) Do not burden the team with triitial chores and nonsense reports. Provide theteam with both administrative and clerical support.

j) Encourage all types of positive communication among members and levelsinvolved in the effort.

k) Be flexible when errors occur, correct them, change plans when necessary,and do not over commit to one idea or one course of action.

I) Encourage production of ideas, plans, drafts and varying approaches among theteam to insure that all feel the commitment towards the process undertaken.

m) Provide supervision and support in terms of consultants and resources for allaspects of the program.

3) Facilitator and Inhibitors of the LRE Process for Inn* and inter StaffC2operation:In order to translate the specific suggestions into an applied checklist for theplacement team, the materials employed in a recent workshop with special andregular educators have been employed. The materials were developed byKnutson and Von Seggem 11977) to assist educators in their attempt to improve

196'-

34

vt

the qualitative dimension of the IRE Doctrine. They identified seven majorareas where problems may arise to inhibit the qualitative improvements inprogramming and serviceslot handicapped children. Along with the seven areasof concern, they also suggest possible solutions to bona* the desired changes.This checklist will be most useful for the transitiontimonitoring team inidentifying possible problem areas where limitations of the LRE concept can beidentified.

aa,

131)

INHIBITORS

A. Unclear IEP

44.

QUALITATIVE IMPROVEMENTS

A. Welt written IEP

IL Lack of information toncerning the process (mainstreaming) and the product_ 8.(Modica god) chkidren

1. 1.1riainty or fear of the known2. fliorePered for implementation'3. Skills inking

C. Role delineation friction1. Ilidefinoil roles2. Lade of commitment3. lads of leedershict

D. Communication 'lockage or Friction1. Resistance2. *WOO3. Lack of interperiorkel skills

a. Rapportb. IrCerviewingiconsultativec. Portend prooilem centered rather than pupil centered

4. Power structurea. Lade of awareness conoeAling existing power sr. uttureb. Inability to cope wittior workwithin the existing

power MUM,*

C.

D.

4

FACILITATORS

..--V,N1Linforifril staff in remit to process imainstreamino) and product(handicapped) children

1. Inservice within individual buildingsa. formal'b. informal

2. ` Inoue Success of Product by,a. mailIttetra handicapped Child who livery Wine in s

certain areab. "looki normal"c. *acts normal"

Clarity of roles1, Have role responsibilities written out and discussed2. , Mt according to role responsibilities,3. Elicit administratli support

Communication flow1. Active listening2. Teacher consultaWr

a. provide informationb. provide supportc. provide reinforce skills

3. Kid-centered sworn% reduces emphasis on personal problem4. Flexibility within power structure ("roll with.it" tradeoffs)

;NHIlltrOld (cent)

E. Scheduling Blockages or Frictions1. Children into and out of regular and resource clanks2. Setting up conference times for supportive anti information

shrine purposes3. Parental conferences

F. Instructional/Programming Blodkapes1. Inconsistent Vials and objectives between regular and resource

staff2. Inconsistent instructionatween regular and resource staff3. What classes to attend; credit: to be given isecondaty)4. Follow through commitmentS. Record keep!ng

G. Pupil Evaluation Frictions1. Inconlistent expectations2. Record keeping3. follow through instructional programming not bawd on

consistent pupil evaluation

H. Program Evaluation1. Who is doing what?2. To whom?3. When?4. Why? ,

S. Can it Ire changed?Should it?

rt

7. The process for program change is not known or is unclear.

BEST COO AVAIMBLEO

"."

FAcuirAnots (can't)

E. Scheduling effectiveness1. Use common rapport to facilitate2. Forms3. Contracts4. Use of paraprofessiorsalt

F. Instrictional/Progranwning1. Matching, children toteeching style.2. Clearly stated objectives3. Contracts4. Joint Wm* SootS. Feedbackd. Appropriate selection of instructions' methodsAnaterlals7. Interschool file of materialsS. Record keeping bee pupil and program evaluation. section

GedH) 4

G. Pupil evaluation1. Establish corneae2. Select evaluation procedure3. Coilect evaluation information

a. dillyb. meeklyc. 'monthly

4. Make decisionl based on evaluation data obtained

H. Program Evaluation1, Resource poratimel self evaluation2. Regular faculty tion& Gamed evaluation of Reeourcw/SUPPort Prollum4. Create parent evaluation form.

e

4

4) Harmful Effftts of PlationontSoction 12ta.02. The LRE doctrine includes a provision to insure that the Kiel placement

setting for the handicapped child will not result in any harmful side effects.°action 121.552 (d) states:

in selecting the least reetrictiwi environment, consideration is given to anypotential harmful effect on the child or on the quality of services which hehheneeds.

Therefore, as a part of th,s self-14N guide, it is recommended ihat'a fortrcbeprovided 0iat addresses this concern. The actual nature and scope of the formwould bedevelopecl through appropriate field testing and modified over time asthe fieldatures in its ability to determine the potential harmful eff is ofplacement decisions. The form proposed below represents an initial atte?npt toaddress the "harmfulness' aspect of placement deciiions.n The various areasincluded in the form and the ranking of the harmful effects which the placementsetting may have on the child are presented primarily for discussion indelaboration. It is also recommended that the form be included in the 'EP processto insure that all areas were considered during the placement process. (Pleaserefer to the form entitled, "Harmful Effects of Placement Form.")

130

I

HARMFUL EFFECTS OF PLACEMENT FORM

Please evaluate the placement setting in relation to any harmful effects it may have on the child.

Rankteetotal

Adjustment%Nabataean,Adjustment

Paw EmmaRelation

Parma litiosneEnvironment

FailurePotential

OIMrMar

HarmfulEffects ofPlacement

..

NoHarmfulEffect

10

8

7

6 .....---.4

3

3

10. LEA RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER AGENCIES

Section 121a.554

a) Rationale: The amount of confusion regarding the LRE doctrine seems toexpand almost geometrically as one leaves the confines ofan LEA and venturesinto the other placement settings. This writer has interviewed key individuals inboth public and private programs who have not heard of Public Law 94-142,never mind the LRE component. It is beam of this dramatic discrepancybetween the LEA and other agencies that specific recommendations are made toinsure that the letter and spirit of the law are realized for all children placedoutside the LEA.

b) Suggestions: Once the decision is made to place a child outside of theimmediate domain of the public day school system, the LEA must take steps toinsure that the LRE doctrine is carried out. Whether the child is Joined inanother LEA, private day school, public or private institution, hospital,homebound program or correctional facility, the LEA should document thefollowing:

1) The list of placement alterrativas within the particular primary setting, (SeeGeneral Model of LRE Placement Options) and the extent to which thehandicapped child will be able to participate in special and regular educationwithin the LEA (See 121a.452, 1216.360).

2) A procedure to establish channels to insure that direct and meaningfulcommunication occurs regarding all aspects of the child's program, such asIEP, parental involvement, inservice training etc. The LEA and all agenciesinvolved with educating the handicapped child should assign specificpersonnel and/oi committees to insure that the communication channels areestablished and operating (See 121a.360, 1210A52).

There has to be prior agreement and understanding between each of theseadministrative units in relation to the IRE doctrine and the componentsthereof in order for quality to be assured. To what extent will the cost ofarranging for the IEP meetings, phone calls, logistics and other details relatedto the arrangements of an IRE continuum be shared? Does the responsibilityfor these costs lie totally with the LEA or, where the child is primarilyplaced? Or, is it to be shared equally between and among those agenciesproviding services to those children? How will surrogate parents be selected?How and to what extent will LEA have input into the content of the IEP. Towhat extent will LEA be able to suggest modifications within existingprograms of the individual agency etc.?

14b

4

3) The procedures that have been established to insure that the appropriateinterface of services between the LEA and agency occurs. This interface ofservices will enable the wovement of handicapped children into and out ofLEA's to occur smoothly.

4) The ink. .ice efforts in relation to the LRE doctrine that are provided thestaffs at each of the agencies working with handicapped children. Thisinservice should come from the SEA, LEA, a university or college or theagency itself.

5) The procedure where the LEA wi" be provided the anticipated timelines thateach handicapped child will remain in any particular agency. Thisinformation will enable the LEA to estimate the cost of the programs and theapproximate time to be spent by each handicapped child. If the handicappedchild stays longer in any or all settings beyond the expected time, the LEAcould then seek an explanation as to why the delay or change of program orservices to the handicapped child. Granted, it is understood that the timespent by any one handicapped child will vary, however, each agency usually

# selects clients with traits and characteristics that will reflect a certain range ofpotential behaviors and, as such, has some idea of the length of time mostchildren remain in their program.

61- The agency should also provide the LEA with information indicating thedistribution of the handicapped children under their care. Although it willvary for each agency. a prototype form is presented below fora residentialprogram. By plotting the location of the handicapped children, the agencywill provide the LEA with an indication of where and how their children areserved. Please refer to The Resident Location Form for Institutional Setting.

cl RESIDENT LOCATION FORM FOR INSTITUTIONAL SETTING

Please indicate the primary residential and educational location of all handicapped children under your cars.

EDUCATIONAL LOCATION

RESIDENTIAL-LOCATION

institutionalSchool

Full Time

institutionalSchool

Part Time

Public DaySchool

Part Time

Public DaySchool

Full Time TOTAL.

Natural Homeof Child

FosterHome

GroupHome

Full Time Residentat Institution

TOTAL

142

4, 4. -t wr444.414

11. SEA MONITORING ACTIVITIES

Section 1218.556

As one indicator of the SEA Monitoring Procedure of the IRE doctrine, theSEA should document the number of hearings and disputes that arise each yearregarding handicapped children in relation to the IRE component. This wouldenable an indepth case study of the specific complaints in an attempt to SWAMbetter insights and understanding of the possible conflicts involved in satisfyingthe IRE doctrine is being implemented over time in any particular state.Namely, if the number and kind of complaints continue to rise instead ofdecline, it could be an indication tha the state and LEA efforts are not adequatein providing services to the handicapped child's least restrictive environment.

However, it should be noted that this is not the only possible conclusion thatcould be drawn from an increased number of hearings and disputes on a statelevel regarding the LRE doctrine. A by-product could also be the level ofawareness and the intensity of the advocacy of some group's in their increasingawareness of their rights and of the federal mandates. Thiscould possibly makethem more insistent upon the highest quality of programs and services in theleast restrictive setting for their children.

At any rate, the data generated from the state regarding IRE hearings wouldenable some assessment of what the cause or causes of these hearings were. TheBureau, SEA or LEA could then provide appropriate inservice, recommenda-tions. or resources to alleviate potential causes of the IRE conflicts.

This same approach in documenting conflicts and disputes over the IREcomponent of the law can be done at the LEA. Each LEA could refer allpossible complaints to its IRE committee for solution and analysis of theparticular problem.

CHAPTER III

1. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

a) Extensive Self -Study Guido: The confusion surrounding the IRE doctrine isvery extensive. As indicated by the survey of special education teachers, regulareducation teachers, and administrators regarding the least restrictiveenvironment, there is: 1) much confusion as to the meaning of the IREconcept. 2) much ignorance on the part of regular education regarding thehandicapped children. 3) some resistance on the part of both regular educationand special education staff to commit fully to the concept of the least restrictiveenvironment, and 4) minimal involvement in the formative stages of the IEP

1 443 14

writing by all parties potentially involved in providing services to handicappedstudents. The limited commitment at the summative end of the IEP processmeans potentially limiting the IRE options for the handicapped child. Otherwriters (Hayes and Higgins, 1978) have stated their concerns regarding themisuse and confusion by professionals about the terms "mainstreaming" and"least restrictive environment". These writers clarify that mainstreaming and theLRE doctrine are two distinct terms. Also, Nix 11977), writing on behalf of hardof hearing children, expressed grave concern over the misuse of the IRE conceptas a possible justification for the wholesale mainstreaming of hearing impairedhandicapped children.

Faced with the scope of *he problem of trying to implement the LRE doctrinein both letter and spirit, it recommended that an extensive selfitudy guide bedeveloped. This initial self-study guide should range beyond the immediate needsof the Bureau and/or the SEA in terms of their dataor reporting requirements.The self-study guide should range-beyond the immediate needs of the Bureauand/or the SEA in terms of their data ur reporting requirements. The self-studywide should be designed as an optimal model which would serve primarily as aneducational instrument to improve, sensitize. and suggest best practices andProcedures for all LEAs. It is essential that every potential point of the LREcontinuum be documented and outlined in this initial guide.

Since the time lines of this existing position paper preclude any extensiveMeaningful field testing of the basic forms, procedures, and suggestions of thispaper, it is recommended that a self-study guide be field tested formodifications recommendations, and input from practitioners in the field. Theinitial field testing of the self-study guide should be primarily aimed at theLEAs. There are two reasons for this: first, the LEA will serve as a catalyst forimplementing the law and thus, the largest and most extensive data base will befound in relation to the LRE doctrine at the LEA level. Second, the LEA iswhere the letter and the spirit of the law will be actualized in terms of servicesand programs directly to the handicapped child. Therefore, the-utility of aself-study guide as a means to assist LEA's in their efforts to achievean optimalimplementation of the LRE doctrine could be directly assessed.

Appropriate field testing of this optimal model will enable respondents fromacross the country to:

1) React and comment on each of the critical points along the IRE continuumfrom the specific letter to the spirit of the /10'-

2) Assess their level of compliance with the :ette of the law.3) Judge their efforts and/or progress towards the spirit of the law.4) Make recommendations in relation to their "best practices" that may be, in

reality, better than those suggested in the initial model.

145 144

5) Possibly compare their existing programs to other LEAS of comparable size,SES and population base.

Finally it is expected that the feedback from the various LEAs would assist theBureau in its efforts to clarify and implement the various components of theLRE dodrine.

b) Mac Report and Self-Study Guide: The need for an extensive LRE self -studyguide should be examined in light of the comments found in the Final Report ofthe Management Analysis Center's Survey of State reporting capabilities (SeeFinal Report, MAC, 1977). The MAC report indicated that the SEAS found theLRE data requirements to be too extensive, troublesome, and impractical.However, since their surrey concentrated on the SEA's ability to aggregatecertain data points for their annual program plan, it did not directly reflect theLEAs needs to effectively implement the LRE doctrine in both letter and spirit:As indicated in the survey of the LEAs, the amount of confusion that currentlyexists regarding the LRE concept almost necessitates an extensive self-studyguide, if any consistent progress is expected. Therefore, there appears to be aneed to direct the LEAs in their effort to implement not only the letter of thelaw but the spirit and intent of the law. The self-study guide will be primarilyemployed as an inhouse monitoring procedure by each LEA. The guide wouldenable each LEA to assess it's overall commitment to the IRE concept.

c) LEA In-House Modifications: Much of the success of an LEA inimplementing qualitative changes in the various components of Public Law94-142, especially the LRE doctrine, will depend on several in-housemodifications.

1) Administrative Structure: The first of these should be an administrativestructure to reflect any and all changes as a result of the Public Law. The districtshould be sure to document its current organizational structure and its chain ofcommand in relation to providing programs and services to handicappedchildren. A specific list of responsibilities for each level and component in thisorganizational structure should also be deteiled. As the district proceeds to makeappropriate changes, recommendations and modifications in relation to the LREdoctrine, any and all structural and administrative changes should also beaddressed and documented on the self-study guide. Also documented within theadministrative structure would be any changes in responsibilities and roles inrelation to LRE practices especially with agencies othet.,than the LEA.

In an interview with the superintendent of a local school district, he expressedconcern that educational 'administration as a whole had not been too involvedwith Public Law 94-142 or its potential ramifications. He stated that theeducational administrators (in particular, principals) do not see their roles aschange agents or as key persons in mainstreaming either with the 1EP process or

14i 146

the LAE doctrine. It was his recommendation that 1) special education andeducational administration jointly wok on efforts at inservice training and atthe pre-service level at the university and 121a.382 (f), (3),(2) the role of theprincitial es a change agent be dearly defined in each LEA.

The superintendent made a special point regarding the principal and thequalitative implementation of the IRE doctrine. He indicated a need for strongadministrative support for the placing of handicapped students into the 'regularclass setting. Much of the cooperation, support system, logistical, and schedulingchanges needed for successful integration will have to come from the office ofthe principal. Therefore, securing and understanding the prihcipal will beessential to any meaningful changes in relation to the IRE doctrine. ,

2) Steering Committee: Another possibW in-house modification should be theestablishment of a steering committee. Each LEA should establish a committeeconsisting of representatives from all units and levels within that LEA. Districtlevel administrators, psychologists, principals, special and regular class teachers,and parents should be represented on this committee. This committee couldprovide appropriate guidante for establishing, monitoring, modifying, andrefining IRE ponied- and procedures in the LEA. The function of thecommittee would be as a watch dog to insure that placement procedures areappropriately monitored and that handicapped children, placed in varioussettings. are done so consistent with mandates and current regulations. Thecommittee could also serve in an advisory capacity for new personnel as well asfor problems that arise in the district in regards to IRE decisions. Thiscommittee could also coordinate resources and personnel to provide continualongoing inservice training where needed in the district to insure that all levelsand components of a total district educational effort are moving towards theimplementation of the spirit of the IRE doctrine. Finally, the committee canserve as a liaison between the LEA and the ball institution of higher learningthat will be providing in-service training and pre-service training to teachers.Through this procedure the committee could then inform and document theirneeds to the institution to insure that all pre-service teachers am adequatelyexposed to the concerns and needs of LEA's within that state or area. Also, anyand all inservice needs could be appropriately addressed through inserviceactivities by the institution.

3) Board of Education :, Another area of concern that should be addressed bythe LEA involves a qualitative implementation of the IRE doctrine and maynecessitate modifying views of the Board of Education. To date. little has beendone to document attempts to educate the Board of Education. Several LEAadministrators have expressed a concern over the lack of understanding on thepart of the Board to changes in special education in general. Most seemed toindicate that insight and understanding by a particular member of the Board wasclosely related to his/her past experiences, such as a parent of handicapped

1 .1

147

children. Their recommendations were to insure that the Board members wereactively involved Ito the extent possible) in all inventive Veining, programmodifications and services to the handicapped population. Without a systematicattempt to enlighten the Board to the many changes occurring in specialeducation, much of the basic support required for qualitative improvements willbe lost

4) Coordinated System of Service: There also appears to be a great need foreach LEA to modify existing services to the handicapped by insuring that asystematic and coordinated program is developed at all educational levels withinthe district.

The least restrictive environment doctrine will have different meanings withinthe different levels of the educational system. The rate and level of functioningbetween the handicapped child and the nonhandicapped child at the elementarylevel will not be as groat as the discrepancy in the junior high and high schoollevel. There will be a greater -and increasing distance between the performance ofhandicapped students as they get older than their non-handicapped peers,especially in the area of mental retardation. (Because the high school programinherits the handicapped children from the junior high and in turn the juniorhigh from the elementary program, there is a need for districts to evaluate thecomprehensive plan for the transition of students from the elementary to juniorhigh to the high school. The transition should be done by some trackingmechanism to insure that appropriate communication within and between staffs.programs and levels ()Mrs.

An example of a coordinated effort on the part of an LEA can be seen invocational education for the handicapped. In order for a vocational program tobe effective, it must have built a sound foundation of support among theparents, students and the business community. However, the success of theprogram at the high school level will, for a large part, be dependent upon theawareness and training provided in the junior high school curriculum forpre-vocational skills. Without a coordinated approach between the high schooland junior high school programs, much of this valuable preplanning and earlyshaping will be lost.

There appears to be a different response required in. terms of the least restrictiveenvironment at the different levels. A student with teaming problems will bedealt with differently, based upon his developmental and functional level at theelementary level than at the high school level. For example, the awareness of thehandicapped students at the junior high school level of peer pressure and peeraccountability is much greater than at the elementary school level. Therefore,different procedures should be undertaken to insure that the least restrictiveenvironment, not only in terms of program options, but also with respect to thepsychological components of the student development and how he or sheperceives the setting, should be considered by each LEA at each level of theeducaticinal process.

147 '

,41101I

Bibliography

G. F, Knutson. R., Manner, S. "on Seggem, M. Survey of LEA AttitudesTowards Public Law 94.142 and the LRE. Unpublished Manuscript,University of Arizona, 1977.

Alois, G. F. Initial Impressions of Regular Class of Mainstreamed HandicappedChildren, unpublished Dissertation, University of California, Riverside,1976,

Brooks. 8. and Brinsford, L. Modification of teachers and EMIR. Attitudestowards exceptional children. Exceptional Children, 1971, 38,259-260.

Bums, R. Suggestions for involving teachers in innovation. In M. Afton and R.Hyman. (Eds.). Change and Innovation in Elementary and SecondaryOrganization, Holt, Rinehard and Winston, New York, 1971.

Cruick Shank. W.M. Least Restrictive Placement Administrative WishfulThinking. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 10, 4.1977.

Final Report: Assessing State Information Capabilities Linder P.L. 94-142,Management Analysis Center. 1977. Washington, O.C.

Guskin, S. L. Measuring the strength of the stereotype of the mental defective.In N. R. Ellis (Ed.), Modbook of Menus Deficiency, pp. 325-352. NewYork, McGraw-Hill, 1963.

Hayes, J. and Higgins. S. Issues regarding the IEP teachers on the front line.Exceptional Children, 44, 4, January. 1978.

4'Horejsi. C. R. Deinstitutioneization and the drelopment of community basedservices for the mentally retarded unpublished manuscript. Missoula:University of Montana, 1975..

Jones. R. L. (Ed.) Mainstreaming and the minority child, CEC Reston, VA..1976.

Kahn, S. Retardates Try Social Living, Rehabilitation Record, 1965, 6, 20-22.

Kiri), D. L., Kuriloff. P., and Buss, W. Legal mandates and organizationalchange. In N. Hobbs (Ed.) Issues in the Classification of Children. Vol. 4.pp. 319482. San Francisco: Jossey-Bess, 1975.

149 148

, Knutson, R. Von Seggern. M. Reduction of Blockages in the MainstmamingProcess. Unpublished manuscript. University of,Arizona. 1977.

Lento, W. O. Who are all the children, its Goldstein Mina,Retardation, Special LearrtinoCorporatioti, Guilford, Conn.. 192&

'MacMillan, D., Jones, B. and Meyers. E. Mainstreaming the Mildly RetardedSome Questions, Cautions and Guidelines. Mental Retardation, 1976, 4,1,340.

MacMillan. O. L Special education for the mildly retarded: servant or savant?Focuses on Exceptional Children, 1971, (2) (9),1-11.

Martin. E. W. Some thoughts on mainstreaming. Exceptional Cl ild , 1974,41, 150463.

Melcher, J. W. Some questions from a school administrator. In E. L. MeyerEd.).. Proceedings The Missouri Conference on

C.ategoricalfislo+Categorical Issues in $47cial Education. The University ofMissouri - Columbia, 1971, 33.38.

National Advisory Ccimmittee on the Handicapped, Reprinted from AmericanEducation, 1978.

Nix G. W. MainstreaM Placement Question/Checklist. The Ikilte Review, 79,5,September, 1977, 345-356.

Von Seggern, M. Behavior Checklist, unpublished instrument, University ofArizona, 1977.

Wilson. W. Social Psychology and Mantel Retardition. In Ellis (Ed.)International Review of Reword, in Mental Retardation, Vol. 4, NewYork: Academic Press. 1970.

Yates, J. Model for preparing regular classroom teachers for "mainstreaming."Exceptional Children, March, 1973, 40.471.473.

Yoshida. R., Fenton, K, Maxwell. J. and Kaufman, M. Group Decision Makingin the Planning Team Process: Myth or Reality? Research Report No. ZState Program StudiesBranch. USOE. BEN. DID., 1977.

SECTION III

Place Meht in theLeast Restrictive Environment

Jay Gottlieb

j.

GOTTLIEB, JAY. Dr. Gottlieb received his Ph.D. degree from YeshivaUniversity. During the past eight years he has conducted research and establishedprograms in the area of mainstreaming retarded children. His prirntry area ofprofessional interest is with the social acceptability and adjustment of mildlyretarded children. Most recently Dr. Gottlieb has been studying the impact ofcommunity-trued education on institutionalized severely retarded children, andthe role played by citizen advocates in facilitating retasdedCeople's transitioninto the community.

J

162

One of the major provisions of the procedural safoguardslecfon of Public Lew94-142 is that handicapped children should be educated in the least restrictiveenvironment. The intent of this section of the law is to have handicappedchildren educated together with nonhandicapped peers to the maximum extentthat Is appropriate. The law does not indicate how the maximum extentappropriate is determined. However, unless gracile criteria can be generatedwhich spell out very clearly when a placement is the least restrictive, thelikelihood is great that many children who belong in a segregated placement willnot be and other children who should be mainstreamed also will not be. It isequally possible that the least restrictive environment will automatically beinterpreted as the most appropriate environment by some school administrators,when clearly this was not the intent of the law. The essence of Public Law94-142 is to provide kmdicapped children with the most appropriate educationpossible. The notion that the education must be in the least restrictiveenvironment is correct, but only when such an education is appropriate.

Few people concerned with quality education for handicapped children woulddeny that the intentions of the law are admirable. Those who worked so hard foradoption of Public Law 94-142, especially the provisions dealing with placementin the least restrictive setting, sincerely believed that handicapped childrenwould fare better if they were educated alongside nonhandicapped peers. Theybelieved that handicapped children would no longer be stigmatized if they wereeducated in regular classes, as opposed to self-contained special classes. Theybelieved that handicapped children would learn acceptable behavior if they hadnonhandicapped peers to emulate, as Apposed to being consigned toa classroomwhere the only available role models were other handicapped children. Theybelieved that hiodicapped children would learn more academically if theyreceived the same academic curriculum and academic demand as

nonhandicapped children, as opposed to the 'watered-down' curriculum andtesser academic demand that was so common in many special classrooms. Andwhile there wasand still islittle evidence that any of these beliefs are justified,advocates of Public Law 94-142 argued rightfully that the burden of proof is onthose who want to continue segregated classroOms to demonstrate that theseclasses are actually helpful to handicapped childfen, and not simply that they arenot harmful. Put another way, if, special theses cannot provide a superioreducation for handicapped children there it, little justification for theircontinued existence.

Careful examination of the literature on the effects of class placement revealsthat handicapped children do not fare well regardless of whether they areeducated in self-contained classes or spend their entire school day in regularclasses. Some of this literature will be reviewed in the following section of this

-pbsition-paper;lf placement-has little-effect on handicapped children'sperformance the major purpose of Public Law 94-142. then. should be on

152153

developing ways to improve the educational performance of handicappedchildren; emphasis on promoting placement with nonhandicapped childrenshould be relegated to leew importance since the bulk of the evidence suggeststhat such placement is not accompanied by demonstrably better performance.From this vantage we require an alternative definition of the term katastricitve. The working definition that will be adopted for the presentdiscussion is as follows: leat restrictive environment implies that environmentwhich imposes the fewest limitations on the handicapped educationalperformence, regardless of whether such placement is with nonhandiapperpeers. To this definition, we must add one qualification: If there it no observabledifference in the educational performance of handicapped children in regular orself-contained classroom settings, the regular setting shall beprefeffsd.

The use of the working definition that is being employed here implies that wemust be able to identify classroom environments that are suitable for handicappedchildren. This is not a simple task. Firetewe must be able to identify educationalenvironments that are suitable, for some handicapped children but not others.Second, we must be able to identify criterion vatiableslhat can be employed toassess handicapped children's level of functioning. Without well defined criteriawe have no way of knowing whether or not a placement is appropriate. In otherwords, the task at hand is to identify relevant independent variables that willenable us to identify components of educational environments that areappropriate for particular handicapped children, and to identify relevantdependent variables that will enable us to evaluate whether the handicappedchild is performing well in his class placement. Further, the variables that weidentify must be translated into direct educational practice at the school and/ordassroom levothor they will remain marginally useful at best. Failure to identifymeaningful and measurable aspects of the educational environment as well asappropriate criteria to assess child progress will effectively preclude any progresstoward improving the education of handicapped children. It will result in acontinuation of present-day practices in special education-not to mentionregular education as well where educational innovations are made becausecertain people 'feel' that the innovation is appropriate; or, where innovation

'often results from judicial rul:rigs because the defendants (usually schoolsystems) simply do not have the evidence to justify their actions.

Nowhere is the need for guidelines more evident than in the area of labe:s andstigma, two emotionally loaded Midst that more than any others were probablyresponsible for the demiseof selfabtained educational programs. The argumentwas advanced, and often repeated (see most recently Abeson & Zettel, 1977),that special classes stigmatize children, and that if handicapped children werenot educated in special classes they would not be labeled and. therefore, net bestigmatized. This argument was in part responsible for the passer of Chapter766 of the General Laws of Massachusetts, a pioneering piece of legislation that

154

was a forerunner of Public Law 94-142, Clearly, the argument that special classeslabel children and that labels stigmatize this face validity. It certainly sounds

The difficulty is that there is relathiely little evidence to support thisa rtion. There is far more evidence that the behiglor .exhibited by a childcontributes more to his social rejection than does a label that is applied to him.In other words, a child whose behavior does not conform to an expectedborrn- islikely to be stigmatized regardless of whether he is enrolled in special or reijUtarClasses (see Comm & Gottlieb, 1978 for a review of this literature). And whilethere is evidence available that mildly handicapped children are not especially:fond of their special class placement, it is just as likely that they are notenamored of school in general since they are not apt to be competent performersregardless of their educational placement. In short. despite the fact that therehas been considerable rhetoric that segregated education stigmatizes children,the preponderance of evidence does not support the rhetoric. Vet, despite thefact that the allegedly deleterious effects of labeling have been seriouslyquestioned in the literature (see MacMillan, Jones. & Aloia,1974 for a scholarlyreview of the issues) propondents of special education reform seldom, if ever,mention the review article by MacMillan, et al. It is almost as if there is no roomfor reasoned thought when the thinking does not support a humanistic,reform-minded position.

It may be argued that the research evidence is misleading and that the wrongquestions were asked and/or faulty methods were employed. This ce. Ainiy ispossible. But if the research evidence is misleading the burden of proof falk calthe critics to conduct additional research to refute the evidence. Simply igno..ngavailable data does not strengthen the hand of those who have alerted us tu theharmful effects of labeling. It is time to start relying on research evidence todevelop guidelines for appropriate decisionmaking in special education. Wecannot continue to rely exclusively on informed opinion"when all to often theopinion is not very well informed. If the research evklence is inappropriate orfaulty, let us seek out better evidence and not content,purselves with the illusionthat research is worthless and not likely to be useful for making decisions.Worthless research produces worthless data, but good research can be veryilluminating and is definitely worth obtaini

What has the research found? What do we pretintly "know" about theeducational performance of handicapped children? Some of the availableevidence suggests that handicapped children fare better in one setting or another.However, vhen the studies are reviewed as a whole the most conservativeconclusion that can be drawn is that to pate few educational methods ormaterials have been shown to explain sizable amounts of variance in aneducational criterion variable when the methods or materials are applied on aclassom basis to groups of children. As an example, Project PRIME, a large scalestudy of integrated special education for mildly retarded children failed todetect sizable relationships between a variety of classroom variables and learner

155

variables. Most of the relationships that were statistically significant were not ofsufficient magnitude to be useful for predictive purposes.

An exception to the generalization regarding the limited usefulness of research inthe area of mainstreaming is the set of findings in the area of social acceptance.The- 'ajority of this research, which will be reviewed later, indicates that theplacement of mentally retarded children in regular classes does little to promotetheir social acceptance among mentally typical classmates. Mentally handicappedchildren remain unaccepted regardless of their class placement. There are alwayscertain handicapped children, however, who are socially accepted and at *gibsare sociometric "stars. "This is true whether the handicapping condition is mentalretardation (see Ballard, Gorman, Gottlieb, & Kaufman, 1977 for a discussion ofthis point) or whether the handicapping condition is blindness, as when sightedsubjects in a study by Jones, Levine, and Shell 0072) reported that some blindstudents were well regarded because they had pleasant personalities. Althoughthere have been relatively few studies conducted on the reasons whyhandicapped children are not well liked by their classmates, the bulk of evidenceindicates that their nonacceptance is attributable to inappropriate behavior thanto the handicapping condition per se. From an educational perspective, the factthat nonacceptance is associated with inappropriate behavior is 'agood' sincebehavior is malleable and can be changed. The environment that results inhandicapped children exhibiting the least noticeable behavioral aberrations couldbe defined as the least restrictive environment.

In the following section, some of the litirature pertaining to the effects ofmainstreaming on handicapped children will be reviewed to provide backgroundinformation. The reader will notice that the majority of research reviewed willfocus on mentally retarded children. This distortion of research emphasis reflectsboth the writer's own interests, and more importantly, the relative state ofresearch in different disciplines other than mental retardation. These otherdisciplines do have substantial numbers of "think pieces" or programdescriptions. These latter papers will not be covered in this review, however.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Studies of Academic Achievement

wo, investigations compared achievement of special class EMR pupils with thatof regular class EMR students who were offered supportive services in a resourceroom. Budoff and Gottlieb (1976) randomly assigned 31 EMR pupils,approximately 13 years of age, to regular and special classes. The 17 integratedpupils attended an academically oriented resource room for approximately 40minutes a day throughout the school year. Metropolitan Achievement Tests wereadministered to pupils at the end of the previous school year when all were in

155 156

special classes, two months after the beginning of the year, and at the end of oneyear of treatment. Results of analyses of megrim°, on standard scores attainedat the last two test administrations, with scores on the initial tests administrationcovaried, revealed no difference in reading or arithmetic achievement betwOtintegrated and segregated students it either point in time.

Walker (1972) alio compared achievement of special class EMR pupils with thatof integrated EMR pupils receiving academic instruction in a resource room.fiNentpriine experimental subjects were matched on reading achievement and see(9 to 11 years) with 41 control students who received academic instruction intheir special classes. During two school years the experimental subjects weretaken to a resource room for 45 to 60 minutes a day for academic instruction.Diagnostic and prescriptive educational plans were formulated by the sixresource room teachers who participated, and four of the six teachers usedbehavior modification techniques to facilitate learning. All students wereadministered the word reading, vocabluary, and arithmetic subtests of theStanford Achievement Test at the beginning and end of the second school year.Analysis of variance on grade equivalent, gains between the two testadministrations revealed that experimental subjects had higher mean gains inword reading and vocabulary than subjects who had not received resource roominstruction, a finning which differed from that of Budoff and Gottlieb (1976).The difference in arithmetic gains of the two groups was not significant.

One of the few large scale studies of the effects of mainstreaming onachievement of retarded pupils was conducted by Meyers, MacMillan, andYoshida (Note 1) in 12 California school districts. The study compared scores onthe Metropolitan reading and mathematics subtests of EMR pupils remaining inspecial classes. decertified EMR pupils in regular classes who had been enrolledin special classes, and low - achieving, regular class control students matched withdecertified pupils on grade level, sex, and ethnicity. Analysis of covariance onmathematics and reading scores with grade level covaried revealed a significantdifference among the three groups in both subject matter areas; post hoccomparisons confirmed that EMR pubils scored significantly lower thandecertified pupils and the tatter scored significantly lower than low-achievingcontrol students on reading and mathematics achievement. Decertified pupils,however, did not significantly differ from the low-achieving control studentswith respect to teachers' grades in reading or mathematics.

Studies on achievements of EMR pupils in a variety of school settings revealinconsistent results. Unfortunately, the designs of most achievement studies havefailed to isolate particular treatment methods so that it is impossible todetermine which treatment components were responsible for improvement.

157 15G IOW

Studies of Social AdJustroant

Studies of retarded children's social adjustment have varied with regard to thedefinition and measures of social adjustment. None have employed the term in astrictly clinical sense which incorporates indepth interviews of children'sfeelings. Most investigations of the effect cif mainstreaming on the socialadjustment of retarded children have relied upon perceptions of others or theretarded child's own peiceptions of his social functioning.

OtherePerceptions of Retarded Children

Peers.

Early research that compared the social acceptance of EMR children inintegrated and segregated class placements typically reported that segregatedchildren were more accpeted than EMR children of comparable 10 who-remainedin regular clatsea (e.g., Thurstone, Note 2). These results, hoWever, are difficultto intepret since segregated EMR children were rated by their EMR peers, whileintegrated retarded children were judged by their nonEMR classmates. Becauseintegrated EMR children may function considerably below the modal level oftheir class, it is not surprising that they were found to occupy the least favorableposition in the social status hierarchy of their peer group.

A more meaningful comparison of the social status of integrated and segregatedretarded children requires ratings of both groups of EMR children by children ofcomparable ability. Such an approach was conducted by Gottlieb and hiscolleagues in a series of investigations.

In one of the first studies to examine the effects of mainstreaming on socialacceptance. Goodman, Gottlieb, and Harrison (1972) compared the sociometricstatus of 10 EMR children who at ended regular classes in a nongradedelementary school and eight EMR children who remained in a special class in thesame school. A forced choice sociometric scale was administered to 40 nonlIMRchildren who rated the integrated and segregated EMR children and a randomlyselected sample of other nonEMR children. Results indicated that: (a)nonretarded children occupied a more favored social status in the peer hierarchythan either integrated or segregated retarded children, and (b) male ratersrejected integrated EMR children significantly more frequently than theyrejected segregated EMR children. These results failed to support the commonlyheld belief of special educators that mainstreamed placement promotes thesocial acceptance of retarded children.

Since mainstreamed placement provides greater opportunity for contact betweenretarded and nonretarded children, one possible explanation for the results ofthe Goodman, et al. 41972) study is that exposure of the EMR child's behaviorto his nonretarded peers fails to improve his social acceptance. This hypothesis

115B

was tested in an investigation by Gottlieb and Budoff (19731, who speculatedthat greater exposure between nonretarded and retarded children may actuallybe accompanied by lower social status of the latter group of children. Theseinvestigators adminstered the same sociometric measure used in the prey; ousstudy to 136 nonretarded elementary school pupils. These raters providedsociometric ratings of a randomly selected group of nonretarded peed, 12partially integrated EMR children, and 12 segregated EMR children whoattended the same shoots as the raters. Both the integrated and segregated EMRchildren were enrolled in one of two schools: the first school building, fromwhich 50 nonEMR fitters were seleted, was traditional in that it containedclassrooms accommodating approximately 25 to 30 children; the second schoolbuilding, from which 86 nonEMR raters were recruited, did not contain anyinterior walls and as a result all children, including the retarded children, werevisible to all other peers. The segregated EMR children in the no-interior-wallschool occupied a corner of the building and were the least visible children in theschool, although they were still more visible than the segregated children in thetraditional school building.

Two specific hypotheses were advanced. The first hypothesis was that, regardlessof placement, EMR children in the no-interiorwall school would have lowersocial status than EMR children in the traditional school, because the formergroup of EMR children was more visible to their peers. The second hypothesiswas that partially integrated EMR pupils would receive less favorable ratingsthan segregated EMR pupils regardless of the school which they attended,because integrated EMR children were more visible to their peers than segregatedEMR pupils. Results supported these predictions. Both retarded and nonretardedchi/than in the no-interior-wall school had lower social status on the average thanpupils in the traditional school Also, integrated pupils had lower social statusthan segregated pupils, regardless of the school in which they were enrolled. Thisstudy also confirmed the finding by Goodman, et at. (1972) that nonEMRchitdr as a whole enjoy more favorable social status than either partiallyintegr d or segregated EMR children.

Evidence also suggests that removal of the mentally retarded label has !intoeffect on the acceptance of EMR children. Support for this conclusion wasprovided by lano, Ayers, Helier, McGettigan, and Walker f1974) who comparedthe sociometric status of three groups of elementary school pupils in regularclasses: 606 nonretarded children, 40 EMR children who were formerly inspecial classes and currently received resource room support, and 80 childrenwho had never been diagnosed as mentally retarded but attended a resourceroom for supplemental academic assistance. Results ievealed the EMR childrenwho attended tf e resource room program received the least positive sociometricratings while nonretarded children received the most positive ratings. Theauthors concluded that labeling alone does not account for social 'rr jection.

While the previous studies with elementary school children indicated that

159 5,3

placement of retarded children in regular classes failed to result in morefavorable attitudes toward them, different results were obtained in Sheare's110741 study of 400 adolescents. Two hundred subjectswere randomly assignedto classes with no EMR pupils, and the remaining half were assigned toclassrooms with one to three EMR pupils who were partially integrated into atleast' wo regular classes. Results indicated that nonEMR adolescents who hadthe opportunity to interact with EMR students expressed significantly morefavorable attitudes toward special class pupils than did nonEMR pupils who didnot have EMR pupils in their classes.

While class placement and exposure affect the exteni to which peers can observethe behavior of EMR children, the amount of time that retarded children areactually exposed to nonretarded children during the school day was not directlyexamined in any of the previous studies. The many ways that mainstreamingpractices are implemented by schools result! in a continuum in the amount oftime that integrated retarded children spend in regular classes. Ongoing practiceis not a simple dichotomy with EMR children either totally mainstreamed orexclusively placed in a sett-contained class (Kaufman, at al., 1975). in fact, onestudy which explored the amount of time that EMR children in several schooldistricts spentwith nonhandicapped peers indicated considerable variation in thenumber of hours per week that integration occurs (Gottlieb. Agard, Kaufman, &Sernmel, 1976). Given the findings of studies of placement and 'architecture. aswell as the finding of early studies that retarded children are rejected becausethey are perceived to misbehave (Baldwin. 1950; Johnson, 1950). one couldhypothesize that the more time retarded children are visible to theirnonhandicapped peel*, the more they are likely to occupy an unfavorable socialposition.

This hypothesis was tested by Gottlieb and Baker (Note 3), who assessed thesocial status of 324 elementary school EMR children who were integrated withnonhandicapped peers for different amounts of time during the schOol day.Results revealed a significant quadratic relationship between the percent of timeEMR children were integrated and their social acceptance, with childrenincreasingly less accepted by nonEMR peers as they spent up to 65 percent oftheir time in the regular class. and increasingly more accepted as they spent morethan 65 percent of their time in the regular class. The quadratic effect of timeuniquely accounted for only 2.4 percent of the unique variance in acceptance.however, and the linear relationship between percent of time integrated and!weal acceptance was not significant.Significant relationships were not obtainedbetween social rejection scores and either the quadratic or linear effect of time.

Two assumptions were underlying Gottlieb and Baker's (Note 3) hypothesis. Onthe basis of previous research (Baldwin, 1958: Johnson, 1950), the investigatorsassumed that retarded children in a regular class do not readily conform to thelevel of accepted social behavior of their nonretarded classmates; therefore, it

1 5j160

was assumed that the more time EMR children spend with nonEMR children,the more nonEMR peers are likely to perceive the retarded pupils' discrepantbehavior and to rate them less favorably. One possible reason for the finding inthis study that amount of time integrated did not adversely affect social status isthat nonretarded peers may quickly perceive inappropriate behavior of EMRclassmates when initial impressions are formed. If these first impressions arefirmly held, as evidence suggests (Kleck, Richardson, & Ronald, 1974), the EMRPupil's subsequent behavior over time may not negate the initial perceptionwhich is reflected in his low social status. Another possible explanation for thelack of relationship between time and status is that the integrated retardedchildren's behavior may not have actually differed from that of theirnonretarded classmates, as had been assumed. One study which employed t, restobservation of behavior lends support to this conclusion (Gampel, Gottlieb, &Harrison, 1974J, in apparent contrast to the finding of earlier studies (Baldwin,1958: Johnson, 1950) that nonretarded children reject EMR pupils because of(perceived) misbehavior.

In a subsequent study, Gottlieb (Note 4) examined the relationship among timeintegrated, percei ed behavior, and social status. Specifically, the investigatorascertained the relationship of sociometric status of the EMR sample in theprevious study to peers' and teachers' perceptions of EMR pupils' academicability and aggressive behavior. as well as the linear and quadratic components ofthe number of hours of academic integration per week. The prediction wasadvanced that teachers' and peers' perceptions of behavior exert greaterinfluence on an EMR pupil's social status than the amount of time for which heis integrated. Results supported this prediction. Teachers' and peers' perceptionsof EMR children's misbehavior were significantly related to social rejectionscores. Teachers' and peers' perceptions of EMR children's academiccompetence, while not related to rejection, were significantly correlated withsocial acceptance scores. Neither the linear nor the quadratic component of timecontributed a significant percent of unique variance in social acceptance orrejection scores. These results revealed not only that people's perceptions ofEMR children's behavior influence the way they evaluate them, but also thatperceptions of academic and social behavior affect acceptance and rejectiondifferently. The implication is that acceptance and rejection may not necessarilybe two ends of a single, continuum but instead may represent separatedimensions. This study indicated that amount of time integrated per se has littleeffect on social status.

The selective review of research presented here suggests that mainstreaminghandicapped children does little to improve their social acceptance to peers. Theoften assumed stance that mainstreaming would remove the stigma of specialclass placement (e.g.. Dunn, 1968) does not appear to be supported by the data,at least insofar as handicapped children's social acceptance is concerned.

161

160

Two Separate Concerns--The Institution and the School

How can we determine that a handicapped person is being educated in the leastrestrictive environment? Given the diversity of abilities and characteristics ofhandicapped people, as well as the diversity of environments in which they areeducated, there is no simple snorer to this question. Indices that are effectivecriteria for one handicapped person may not be effective for anotherhandicapped person. An environment that results in fewer incidents of physicalsickness for a severely retarded person may be irrelevant for another relatedperson who seldom gets sick. Yet, despite the idiosyncrasies of individualpeople, we are forced to attempt to describe some general criteria to describeleast restrictive environments that are suitable for large numbers of handicappedpeople. For purposes of convenience, two different cases will be specified,,and.....criteria to evaluate the least restrictive component of each will be developed.The two cases are: (a) handicapped childreii who are transferred frominstlutional facilities to community schools, and (b) handicapped childrenalready attending public schools who are being mainstreamed into regularclasses. These two situations obviously overlap considerably with the degree ofhandicap manifested by the children in question. Children who presently residein institutions are apt to be moderately or severely handicapped while those whoattend community schools are-apt to be moderately or mildly handicapped. It isalso true, however, that some mildly handicapped children can be found ininstitut ,ns just as some severely handicapped children can be found incommunity schools. These two cases are sufficiently dissimilar, however, towarrant separate discussions of methods to implement and to evaluate the leastrestrictive environment for each. Institutional concerns will be discussed first.

Issues Related to the TransferOf Handicapped Children FromInstitution to Community Schools

The past decade has been marked by considerable changes in the field of specialeducation. A century-old history of institutionally-based education for severelyhandicapped children is quickly ending, as is the eighty year history ofself-contained special classes for mildly handicapped children. The recent passageof Public Law 94-142 (The Education for AN Handicapped Children Act of1975), coupled with a variety of accompanying judicial rulings, appear tr2, havemandated that aft handicapped -children, regardless of the severity of theirhandicap, are to be educated in contact with nonhandicapped peers to themaximum extent feasible. The concept of educating handicapped pears withnonhandicapped peers is referred to in Public Law 94142 as education in theleast restrictive environment The term restrictive is intended to mean anyeducation that deviates from what is ordinarily provided to nonhandicapped

1 G162

children. Least restrictive is intended to mean the environment that imposes thefewest limitations on the handicapped child's interactions with nonhandicappedjinn.

The law also provides_ for the continuation of segregated facilities_ forhandicapped children if it can be demonstrated that less restrictive environmentsare inappropriate for the handicapped child. However, it is doubtful that specialeducators will be able to justify placing handicapped children in other than theleast restrictive environment. Consequently, plans are presently being madeacross the country for placing handicapped children in environments that are lessrestrictive than the ones in which they are presently situated. A case in point arethe plans being made to transfer children from institutional facilities tocommunity day school programs.

Not surprisingly, current attempts to deinstitutionalize handicapped children arefraught with problems, most of which are the result of professionals' limitedexperience in the area. One purpose of this piper is to acquaint the reader withsome of the problems that accompany efforts to deinstitutionalize handicappedchildren.

Least Restrictive Environment:From Institution to Community

One of the primary intentions behind the movement to provide handicappedchildren with an education in the least restrictive environment was the desire toimprove the lives of children who lived and were educated in institutionalfacilities. Recent coverage in the popular press as well as the professionalliterature revealed many instances where institutions were derelict in theirresponsibilities to their residents. As a result it became fashionable to indict allaspects of institutional care and to claim that the rights of handicapped childrenwere unconstitutionally violated as a result of institutional placement. As of thiswriting indeed, during the course of this project a federal court agreed thatinstitutions were unconstitutional. Spurred by a variety of court decisions andlegislative mandates, state and local agencies are hurriedly developing plans tochange this situation.

The alacrity with which state and local administrators feel compelled todeinstitutionalize their clients is unfortunate, however. At this particulartransition period when the mechanics of deinstitutionalization are still not wellunderstood, the rapid transfer of large numbers of institutional people intocommunity day schools could cause serious damage to the fragile relationshipthat currently exists between institutions and the communities in which they arelocated. There are a number of obstacles that must be confronted ifinstitutionalized children are to be offered a decent education in community

163 1 62

4.

schools. A brat discussion of some of these obstacles is now presented to alertthe reader to their importance. As it will become obviottL. there are no simplesolutions to these problems; most will simply take time to overcome whileothers will be deak with successfully through prolonged negotiations. As thereader progresses through this document (s)he will note the elaborate network ofinterrelationships that exist between the institution and the community,relationships that transcend the handicapped resident. Although the intent ofthe law was to focus on the plight of the handicapped person, attempts tocomply with the law often involve individuals other than the handicappedPerson. Attempts to deinstitutionalize with minimum disruption will only beaccompanied by detailed attention to a variety of social and economic forcesthat impinge on the implementation of the least restrictive environment Amongthe social and economic forces which must be attended to are the following:

community Acceptant*.Efforts to transfer successfully institutional handicapped children to communityday schools must gain some. Measure of support from the community. This isespecially true in areas where the vote)* are mandated by law to approveincreases in school budgets. One hasbut to review even superficially the ratio ofsuccessful to unsuccessful efforts at raising taxes to provide additional revenuefor the schools to know immediately of thegreat difficulty that will be faced toraise funds needed to support the deinstitutionalization effort. If votersrepeatedly reject increased taxes to support programs for their own children,how much more reticent will they be to provide increased support forinstitutional children who are not their own and who historically, have beenviewed with anxiety and alarm?

Parental Acceptance.One of the 'unwritten assumptions in the deinstitutionalization movement is thebelief that the program has the support of the parents of the residents. Thereasoning behind the assumption of parental approval is 413SY to trace. Originally,before Publibtaiw 94-142 was passed, most of the fervor regarding school-agedretarded children centered around the misclassification and mislabeling of mildlyhandicapped children, most of whom were poor and members of minoritygroups. As a result of this fervor, and contributing to it, some parents brought,class action suits against the schools to stop the. practice of rnisdanifYiriechildren who were not retarded and should never have been diagnosed as such.Partially as 'a result of these suits and partiallyas a result of she general senor ofthe times in support of securing people's`' asic civil rights, professionalsrand thecourts assumed often correctly-that parents were opposed to a segregatededucation for their children. But 'what was not often Mentioned was that themovement to reduie the incidence of misclassification and the accompanyingaction to remove children from segregated classrooms was primarily the concernof poor, minority group parents whose children never should have beenidentified as retarded in the first place. It has not been deMonstrated to this

164

1t3V

writer's knowledge that parents of more substantially handicapped children arealso in favor of having their children educated outside of the institution, inregular schools, or even in classes where the other thildren are visibly lesshandicapped than their own child. In fact, in this writer's experience, and in theexperience of several professionals with whom he has spoken, most parents ofsubstantially handicapped children prefer to have their children educated insegregated facilities where parents perceive (correctly or incorrectly) that theirchildren are being provided the attention they require. It may be inaccurate toassume that parents of institutional children will support the efforts ofadministrators and local school personnel to provide their children with aneducation in community day schools, especially if the parents perceive that theschool is not totally accepting the idea of educating their children.

There is an additional factor that must be considered when attempting toeducate handicapped children in community schtols where their perentsreside.Some parents agonize over the decision to institutionalize their child and whenthey do finally decide, they then deny the existence of the child. It is notuncommon for parents never to mention the child again once he has beeninstitutionalized. If the child is to be educated in community schools thePossibility exists that he will suddenly re-emerge from the closet where he hasbeen hidden for a number of years, much to the embarrassment of the parents:Although it is not being suggested that a child should not be sent to communityschools to spare his parents additional grief, it is advisable to inform parents ofthe intention to send him to community schools so that they can take thenecessary steps for their own peace of mind.

Personnel Apprehensions:Attempts to deinstitutionalize handicapped children involve not only therredent but the professional acrd paraprofessional persons who work with them.it should come as no surprise that efforts to transfer children from theinstitutions to the local schools will be viewed with considerable apprehensionby institutional personnel who fear that they may lose their kts, or have theirjob descriptions radically changed. The 'transfer of institutional children tocommunity schools will also be viewed with alarm by mey school teachers whoare generally applhensive about institutional children, :QV/ local parents whodo not want their 'children associated with children in institutions..

Thi most difficult aspect of the deinstitutionalization thrust concerns the hostof presently unanswered quest:ons about institutional personnel. A number ofproblem areas arise, For example, institutions are usually part of the Departmentof Mental' Health (DMH) in most states. DMH employees pave their own civilservice system, tenure policies, salary structures, grievance committees, and soforth. Now, hat state departments of education are responsible for educating althandicapped children, will DMH employees be required to conform to thelicensing standards of the Department of Education rather than the Department

165

of Mental Health? If so, as most people seem to agree, what with happen totenured professionals who will be forced to-work for local education agencies;will they have to renounce their tenure in one governmental agency and beginagain in another? Will they have to take additional coureework to obtain a stateteaching certificate for administrative certificate) which many institutionalemployees presently do not have? Will they have to forego their present12-month salaries in favor of 10-month contracts which school systems usuallyadopt? What, if any, options are-available to professionals who do not want toteach in local schools, preferring the institution instead? These are some of themestions that must be answered through negotiations among the professionals,

state agencies, and the local school authorities.

Availability of Community Resrurces.Although many institutional handicapped children may be able to profit fromplacement in the community, .they may profit only when the receiving schoolhas the ayailai e.g., material and personnel, to provide effectiveeducation for the , It local schools do not have the necessary facilities,handicapped children may not be able to be placed in the community even if itis in t : best interests.

A number of barriers could exist from the prescriptive on the local schoolswhich include but are not confined to the following:

1. Availability of space. Many local ,school districts may not have the necessaryspace to accommodate additional children into school buildings.

2. Lack of necessary personnel. A considerable number of handicapped childrenrequire physical therapy or nursing care during the day. Many schools simplydo not have these personnel on their payrolls and would have a hard timerecruiting them if it were decided that they were needed.

3: Lack of appropate transportation. Since many handicapped children areconfined to wheelchairs, special buses or vans are necessary to transportthem. There may not be enough of these vehicles to transport the number ofchildren who need them.

4. Lack of suitable educational materials. The school may not have thenecessary edi*r- k 4 > al materials for severely handicapped children. Forexample, or . . or braillers are needed for blind children, portable staircases are ne.....,sary for children who require training in walking, and so forth.

Perhaps the most important "community resources," however, are the attitudesof the local school administrators toward the placement of institutional childrenin community schools. Recent research on this topic suggests that there isconsiderable variability in principals' ettiiiides toward Jeinstitutionalizinghandicapped children. Some principals are willing to accept these children intothe school if they are continent, regardless of the severity of their intellectualdeficit. Others want no part of children who are not likely to master even the

lee

basic rudiments of a traditional academic curriculum. Still others might acceptsuch children into their schools but are reluctant to do so for fear of arousingthe ire of the parent body.

These preliminary data suggest that one of the first actions that should be takenwhen attempting to place handicapped children into community schools is tosurvey local school administrators regarding their tolerance for acceptingchildren with particular skills and deficits. If administrators' areas of hightolerance for deviation can be matched with children's abilities (i.e.,administrators who are willing to accept a child with no academic skills),thesechildren will have a better probability of being placed successfully than whenadministrators' wishes are ignored.

Financing Deinstitutionalization.There is no doubt that the single most pressing obstacle to the implementationof deinstitutionalization prograMs is the i.ck of :appropriated funds. At thistime, local education agencies do not know the number of institutional childrento expect in their schools, the characteristics and needs of the children, nor theresources that are necessary to provide the Oildren with an appropriateeducation. However, there is no doubt that the Inclusion of additionalhandicapped children on the public school enrollment will substantially increasethe costs of that school system. The strain of the LEA's budget will be directlyproportional to the number of additional children they are required to absorb.From where is the additional money to come? Until a satisfactory answer to thisquestion is provided there will be little progress toward providinghandicappedchildren with an education in community schools. Of all the obstacles toeffective implementation of deinstitutionalization programs, the uncertainty offinancial support is by far the most compelling and the one that must beresolved before any of the other difficulties mentioned earlier in this paper canbe addressed. This issue is sufficiently clear that further discussion isunnecessary.

Although there are other potential difficulties that must be considered whentransferring handicapped children from the institution to the community, issuesrevolving around community acceptance, parental acceptance, personnelapprehensions and finance are sufficiently common-and important-that theywere highlighted. There simply is no available data at present to indicateproductive ways to deal with these difficulties.

Owes for Thought

The previous section of this paper was concerned with potential obstacles to theimplementation of deinstitutionalization ntograms for the education ofhandicapped children between the ages of 3 and 21 years. In this section. a

1671 6

couple of issues will be raised regarding the efficacy of educating institutionalchildren in special schools in the community. Special schools are cited as theexample since it appears at present that institutional children will be sent to suchschools in the community to receive their education. The first issue that shouldbe considered is whether, in 'fact, special schools are less restrictive thaninstitutions, as intended by Public Law 94142, or whether the transfer ofchildren from the institution to the special school simply represents a changefrom one segregated environment to another.

From this writer's experience, it cannot automatically be assumed thatdeinstitutionalization represents a change which results in handicapped peoplegoing from a segregated environment to a less segregated environmer.... Althoughthis is often the case it is by no means certain. Present day efforts todeinstitutionalize handicapped children often rely on the cooperation of localschool authorities to supply the necessary space in community schools. Manytimes, the community school administrator provides- a special school forinstitutional children. These special schools are often small, isolated, and do nothave the level of supportive personnel that are available in the institution.Further, unlike many large institutions where large numbers of "normal" peoplecome and go (approximately 100 to 150 high school children every week in oneIllinois facility), few, if any, "normal" visitors are available to handicappedchildren in some special school facilities. In other words, if the number ofnormal people with whom the handicapped person comes in contact were to beemployed as an index of the least restrictive environment, some institutionswould appear "less segregated" than many community facilities. And although itmay be true that a change of scenery will benefit handicapped children andyouth, it may be risible to offer a change within the confines of theinstitution.

A second issue that requires thought is whether 't is to the handicapodadvantage to be shuttled out of the institution for part of the day and thenshuttled back again later in the day. One of the often stated needs ofeducablementally handicapped children, according to several introductory texts, wastheir need for structured situations, and for teachers with whom they couldrelate. How much more critical is it for seriously handicapped children to havestructured environments? If it is critical does the trassfer of children fn. Is onelocation to another constitute a more structured situstiOn than simply retainingthem in a single environment? Al"ough there is no simple answer to thisquestion, it certainly is worth some additional thought than what it has beengiven until now.

A third issue that must eventually be addressed concerns the type of data we Nhave to acquire in order* 4ecide whether placement in community day schoolsis advantageous to the handit:oped child. What criteria are we to employ fordecision- making? Also, what opz,nns will be available to community and

168

institutional administrators if the evaluative data suggest that handicappedchildren are not faring well in community schools? Is community education forinstitutional children to be considered an irreversible felt accompli, or will we beable to resureect. an institutionally-sit:rated education if the data warrants?

These issues, as well as a host of others that will become clearer as we gainadditional experience with the deinstitutional movement, must eventually bedealt with if handicapped children are truly to be provided with the mostappropriate education that is possible.

CRITERIA TO DETERMINE ADEQUACYOF IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES

How are the local Education Agencies {LEA's) to decide whether a particularschool is sincerely attempting to provide handicapped children with the !eastrestrictive setting possible? This question will be addressed separately forinstitutions and public schools, both of which have programs that are theresponsibility of the LEA.

Providing the Least RestrictivePlacemant 'Nithin the Institution

As was previously indicated, a recent survey indicated that gpprnximate% 40percent of the residents in one state school for the mentally retarded could notbe transported to community schools for health-related reasons. This does notimply that institutional personnel are absolved from providing these childrenwith a less restrictive environment than they presently experience. But how?What steps must an institution take to indicate that they are indeed providing aless restrictive setting to their residents?

It appears to me that in order to meet their obligations, institutions mustproceed through at least three successive stages: Awareness, DevelopingInstitutional Flexibility, and Courting Community Involvement. Its other words,the delivery of services in the least restrictive setting requires that institutions beaware that they must change; that they actually change their programs andservices for their residents; and that twit involve as many segments of thecommunity as possible. Actual delivery of services in the least restrictiveenvironment occurs only when the third stage has been crmpleted by theinstitutional personnel. Each stage is not static. Rather, each involves acontinuum of action that is designed to provide the least restrictive environmentfor residents. The thesis here is that the provision of services in the leastrestrictive environment is not an either/or propositioni.e., either the mandate isbeing achieved or it is not. Instead, the least rr-trictive environment must beviewed as the ultimate environment for which we must .1.04.*y strive. Until we

169 163

gain additional insights into the way that environments affect people, we areunlikely to know whether one environment is really less restrictive than another.As was suggested in the tieginning of this manuscript, it is entirely possiblethatfor some handicapped people, interactions with nonhandicapped peers may bemore restrictive emotionally than interactions whit ether handicapped people.To provide some elaboration of the three stages, possible actions for each stagewill be suggested.

Awareness

Institutional personnel must first be made aware that they are required to makewhatever changes arefiecessary in order to achieve a less restrictive environmentfor their residents. In my experience, many institutional administrators believethat few, if any, changes are required by law for those residents who are not ableto be transported to community facilities. If the necessary changes are to bemade, there are several things that can be done at the institutional level toincrease awareness. First, the administration can appoint a committee toappraise the employees that even the institutionalizr residents deserveplacement in the least restrictive environment possible. At the same time, theadministration can invite its parent advisory boards to participate inbrain-storming sessions on the most effective ways to Make the necessarychanges. Representatives from each cottage for unit, depen4ing on the way thata particular institution is structured) can be asked to provide specific ideas forchanging the existing routine for the residents with whom th4y work. In short, atthis stage various concerned groups can begin to think about vrays to provide lessrestrictive environments to the handicapped residents. But clearly, merelythinking about the issues hardly suffices. The planning and !awareness sessionsmust lead directly to institutional change. This brings us to the second stage inthe Continuum...

Developing Institutional Flexibility

Although the intent of the least restrictive environment section of Public Law94-142 was to provide handicapped people with increased contact withnonhandicapped peers, there are additional components of a less restrictiveenvironment. One of these components involves the quality of services that ahandicapped person is provided. If we adopt the definition of least restrictive asthe environment which imposes the fewest limitations on the handicappedperson's development, then an environment which results in more effectiveprogramming is less restrictive than an environment in which the programming isless than adequate.

10 170

Changing institutional programming does not require the cooperation outside ofthe institution. It requires that the administration adopt a flexible posture toscheduling and assignment of personnel to tasks. Although scheduling is aformidable task and a recalcitrant staff can impede change, neverthelen, ifinstitutions are to be in compliance with the intent of the folders, legislation,fairly substantial changes will be required in the quality of services that arepresently available in many institutions. Examples of possible changes include:Additional personnel, additional materials for educational programming, bettercoordination between the educational and cottage programs, or transferringsome residents to another cottage.

The point being stressed here is that fora start there are a number of things thatcan be done to foster a less restrictive environment without having to resort tocommunity involvemers., which in many communities may be difficult andtime-consuming to achieve. The extent to which institutions effect change fromwithin is a measure of their willingness to offer the residents a less restrictiveenvironment.

Courting Community Involvement

Since the intention of the legislation was to offer handicapped personsexperiences with nonhandicapped peers, institutions must attempt to involve thecommunity in the day to.day activities of the residents if the least restrictiveenvironment in a legal sense is to be achieved.

It will probably be difficult at first to achieve effective community involvement.Institutional personnel may resent having to share some of the decisionmakingauthority with members of the community. Similarly, members of thecommunity may be quite anxious about getting involved with the institutionthat historically has been removed from community participation.

However, there are several things that can be done not only to improvecommunity-institution ties but also to provide more normalizing experiences tothe residents. First, institutional staff could speak at various communitymeetings, such as the Parent-Teacher Organization meetings, and at. TownMeetings. Second, members of the community could be encouraged to tour theinstitution. More specifically, identifiable groups such as high school studentsand senior citizens could be asked to spend some time at the institution.Volunteers could be recruited from these and other groups. Also, certaincommunity functions could conceivably be held on community grounds.Examples of such functions include the high school (or community) bandrecital, business picnic, flea market, and the annual corn boil (the highlight ofthe social season in several small Illinois communities). With a little ingenuity.townspeople could be -duced to interact with some of the residents.

171 170

In summary, there are a number of things that can be done within the institutionto provide less restrictive environments. not only for residents who are beingtransferred to community.basad facilities for their education, but also for thoseresidents whose functit. King may be so limited that they cannot be removedfrom the institution wet for brief periods of time. Implementation of the leastrestrictive environment can be measured along a continuum from planning andaction within the institution to involvement of the community. If an LEAwished to monitor an institution's progress in implementing a least restrictiveenvironment. these stages can be directly translated into measurable criteria. Forexample, a facility could be asked to keep records on the number of meetingsthey had, their attempts to upgrade their services,or their efforts to involve thecommunity in institutional affairs.

With these brief caveats in mind, we now turn to the crux of the matter: Whoshall be deinstitutionalized and how shall we monitor their progress?

From institution to Community

Concerns regarding the logistics of deinstitutionalization, while importantenough to affect the ultimate success of attempts to transfer children tocommunity schools. cannot be allowed to interfere totally. At lhe same timethat efforts are underway to overcome these obstacles, plans must be developedto decide who is to be deinstitutionalized. How do we determine who is a goodcandidate for placement in community schools? Obviously, there is no simpleanswer to this question. The answer depends not only on the characteristics ofthe handicapped child, but also on the resources available in the con 'unityfacility.

Characteristics of the Child.Until a few years ago, institutionalized mildly handicapped children under 21years of age comprised a large percentage of the population at many facilities.However, as a result of the emerging trend toward deinstitutionalization-duringthe past few years, most of the mildly handicapped residents have beentransferred to various types of community facilities. Today, the bulk of thePortu !shah. at most institutional facilities is severely or profoundlyhandicapped. with many residents having multiple severe handicaps. The vastmajority of present-day residents are on medication. and the majority needprosthetic aides to get around. Many of the residents have little, if any,communication skills. cannot manipulate simple objects, are not toilet trained,and can barely feed themselves. Yet, despite this bleak picture of Manyinstitutional residents. most professional workers in institutions would agree thatmany of the residents can profitably attend local community schools. But whichones?

172

This writer interviewed a number of professionals ),ho have had considerableexperience working in institutions, including physicians, psychologists, andteachers, in an attempt to gain some insights into developing a practical guide fordecision-making. As a result of these interviews, two guidelines for deciding whocan be deinstitutionalized are being suggested. First, children who are totallyimmobile to such a degree that they cannot move around even with prostheticdevices are not likely to be good candidates for transfer to community schools.Second, children for whom even modest travel might pose physical harm arenot good candidates for transfer to community schools. Included in this lattercategory are children with certain liver ailments and children with exceedinglybrittle boner. Although the percentage of children who would fall into one ofthe other category varies by institution, in this writer's experience thepercentage is not likely to exceed 40. In other words, 60 percent of the residentsin ininstitution are likely candidates for placement in community facilities.Again, it must be stressed that this is an estimate.

One additional point should be raised with regard to the identification ofcandidates for the community. Aberrant behavioral exhibitions in the institutionshould not be employed as a criterion to exclude certain children from beingplaced in the community. Various professionals have indicated the importanceof the environment as influencers on the behavior of children (e.g., Gottlieb,1978). In the context of institutions and the communities, it should not beassumed that because children engage in bizarre or antisocial behavior whilethey are in the institution, they will also exhibit similar behavioral patterns whilethey are in the community. This writer was provided with a number of exampleswhere chronic behavior offenders were model children during visits to thecommunity. Many handicapped children, regardless of the severity of theirhandicap, rise to the general level of behavior that is accepted in their immediateenvironment. Hence, it is not uncommon to observe an immediate decrease ininappropriate behavior exhibited by children when they enter a communitystore, for example, and a spontaneous "recovery" of the inappropriate behavioras soon as they return to familiar surroundings.

As was mentioned earlier, decisions regarding the inappropriate placement forhandicapped children depend not only on the characteristics of the children butalso on the availability of appropriate resources in the receiving schools. Unlike-child characteristics which are relatively permanent, the availability of resourcesin the community is Mid in the sense that it can bechanged fairly easily. As anexample, it is a constant source of wonder how quickly space can disappearwhen local school authorities do not want a particular program, or how quicklyspace can become available when a program is wanted.

Availability of Community Rasources.Although many institutional handicapped children may be able to profit fromplacement in the community, they may profit only when the receiving school

173

has the available facilities, e.g., material and personnel, to provide effectiveeducation for the resident. If local schools do not have the necessary facilities,handicapped children may not be able to-be placed in the community even if itis in their best interest.

To review the issue of who shall be deinstitutionalized, it appears reasonable thatthe following steps should be considered in roughly this order.

1. A determination should be made of which children cannot be moved at aNfor medical reasons. These children should be excluded from consideration.

2. Of the children who remain. information should be obtained on their levelof performance in: (a) cognitive areas, such as communication, self-help skills,and so forth, and (b) interpersonal behavior.. including such indices as being ableto relate to others and the expression of self- abusive behavior.

3. Similar information regarding level of cognitive functioning and adequacy ofinterpersonal behavior should also be obtained for handicapped children in thecommunity. If community handicapped children exhibit similar levels andpatterns of behavioral adequacy as institutional children, the likelihood is thatthe institutional children can be placed in the same classes as the communityhandicapped children.

4. Local school administrators should be queried regarding the kind ofbehavioral inadequacies that they find unacceptable for their schools. Ifinstitutional children can be matched with principals' areas of tolerance forbehaviural deviations, the children will have a good chance of being successfullyplaced.

Specific instruments to assess children's level of functioning in cognitive andinterpersonal spheres are not being suggested since each institutional endcommunity facility is unique and requires information geared to its ownparticular needs.

Evaluating the Adequacy ofThe Least Restrictive Environment

As was stated in the introductory section of this position paper, the leastrestrictive environment is the one which imposes the fewest limitations on thehandicapped child's educational performance. But what criteria are to beemployed to determine whether the severely and/or profotaidly handicappedchild is benefitting from placement in an environment that on the surface is leastrestricting becauta it offers opportunities for contact with nonhandicappedpersons? Certainly, traditional indices of child progress such as academic

174j

achievement are inappropriate for !many children who can barely communicate,if they can communicate at all. -:Althosuti there are no hard and fast indices forthe identification of appropriate indices ct Progress, a few main indices can besuggested. These include, but are not IimitisgLao.tMi-hurnber of instances of realor feigned health-related complaints, extent of exploration arefivironment, andbehavioral adequacy when the handicapped child remains on the institutionalgrounds.

1. Real or feigned health.relatepi complaints. Many institutional children pretendto be sick in the hope of obtaining sympathy from their caretakers. This is truefor moderately handicapped children as well as for severely handicappedchildren. Children feign headaches, seizures, and a host of other complaints toavoid g33pg to school, doing unpleasant chores, or in the ease of partiallyambulatory children, walking. One criterion to employ to assess whetherchildren are progressing is to determine whether any reduction in health-relatedcomplaints occur when children are outside of the1nstitutional grounds. To theextent that a healthy person, or one who does not constantly maintain that he issick., has greater potential for independent functioning than a child who isconstantly complaining, this variable represents one easy to measure criterion offunctioning.

2. Exploration of the environment. Not only is the physical mobility of manyseriously handicapped children seriously impaired, their cognitive mobility orcuriosity is equally, if not more, seriously impaired. It is not uncommon formany seriously handicapped children to ignore completely stimuli that areplaced before the:-.1, or if they do attend to the stimuli, to do so only fleetingly.Since exploratory, or curiosity-behavior has been theorized to be one of theimportant ways that a person gains mastery over his environment (e.g., Berlyne,1964), this variable can be used as an index of "intellectual functioning" ineveryday situations for many seriously handicapped children. For children whoare less handicapped. more conventional academic indices of cognitiveperformance are available to assess this important dimension.

1 Behavioral adequacy. One of the most common complaints abouthandicapped children in institutions is that they misbehave. At times, long andexpensive treatment programs designed to correct certain behavioral deficienciesresult in a temporary change of behavior. When the handicapped child's behaviorreverts back to its pre-treatment level, the child is said to have regressed to amore primitive state ofinhavior. School teachers, cottage personnel, socialworkers, psychologists, and medical personnel have all borne witness to suchregression at one time or another and have evaluated the behavior as a"regression". The extent to which the child does not exhibit these behavioralregressions can be used as an index of behavioral adequacy. If the child is placedin an environment that is appropriate, we could expect fewer instances ofbehavioral regression, as evaluated by his caretakers.

175 174

4. Quality and intensity of educational programming. The fourth, and final,evaluative criterion to judge the adequacy of the least restrictive environment forseverely and profoundly handicapped children is the quality of educationalprogramming that is provided. Although all handicapped children, in institutionsor public school facilities, are required by law to have I EP's developed for them,the mere availability of a written document provides few clues as to theadequacy of their daily educational program. Careful ant) continuous monitoringof the daily educational exchange between the teacher and the handicappedchild is essential if we are to be in a position to understand the quality ofeducation provided to the child. This writer has recently completed a study ofthe educational programming provided to handicapped children in institutionsand community school facilities. Both educational facilities had equally welldeveloped IEP's and it was not possible to differentiate the instittaional andcommunity groups from a cursory review of the written IEP documents.Periodic site visits to both facilities (usually two mornings" a week) werenecessary to reveal very substantial differences in theway the 1EP was translatedinto educational practice.

In other words, the argument can be advanced that the environment which isleast restrictive 's the one where the child is provided with an educational planthat is directlshould have a

dated into ongoing programming. Further, the programmingble impact on the child's functioning, either in traditional

academic areas, su s communication skills, for the higher level children, or inother areas mentioned previously for lower ability children.

Summary

To summarize the concerns for evaluating the least restrictive environment forinstitutionalized retarded children, l outlined a number of problems that mustbe addressed nef ore any realistic attempts can be madelo concentrate on theproblems of the handicapped persons. Money and spade in the community areabsolutely critical" concerns that in my experience have been so overwhelmingthat they have precluded administrators from seriously considering the needs ofthe handicapped persons. Until these issues are resolved. realistically, little willhappen to promote less restrictive environments. The concerns and needs of theinstitutional and community parents are also very important topics that must beconsidered in any attempt to place institutionalized children into thecommunity. It should not automatically be assumed that parents of institutionalQhildren are totally in favor of deinstitutionalization. For example, at a recentmeeting in which I was in attendance, the parents of the institutional childrencried oi.:t for better programming. They didn't particularly care whether theprogramming was executed in the institution or the community.

1176

U

Among the variables that could be used to judge whether handicapped childrenare in the environment which is least restrictive to their development, I suggestedexamining their health-related complaints, the extent to which they exploretheir environment, the general level of their behavioral adequacy, and the actualquality of the daily educational program that they receive.

LEAST RESTRICTIVE SETTINGS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS

As was mentioned previously, the majority of handicapped children in publicschool programs are considerably less seriously, handicapped than those whoremain institutionalized. The goals for mildly handicapped children are,therefore, different from those for severely handicapped children. Mostfrequently, the goals for handicapped children have been directed towardimproving their sncial functioning. For example, educable mentally retardedchildren have been found to be deficient in social skills and these deficiencies.rather than their limitations in cognitive area, have been the mein reason fortheir difficulties in holding a job when 'they become adults. Similarly, childrenclassified as behaviorally disordered are often proficient academically. Theirprimary needs are in the area of inter. or intra-pet sonal functioning. Also,learning disabled children often have social difficulties that are brought on bytheir academic difficulties. These handicapped children who comprise the vastmajority of handicapped children in public school facilities require anenvironment which fosters improved social functioning. In other words, theadequacy of an educational environment for these children can be determinedby the extent to which they adapt socially to the demands that are placed onthem. The task, then, of evaluating the least restrictive environment forhandicapped children in public schools is to identify the environment whichpromotes social adaptation. But how is this to be accomplished? What criteria dowe employ to determine a child's social adaptation to his environment? We willattempt to answer these questions after we first indicate precisely what is meantby social adaptation. However, we will first consider procedures to monitor theimplementation of the least restrictive placement in a public school context.

Providing the Least RestrictiveEnVironment Within a Public School

It is considerably easier to monitor progress in implementing less restrictiveenvironments in public schools than in institutions. For one importantdifference between institutions and community public schools is the face thathave accumulated considerable experience in providing a variety of placementsfor public school children, but have had less experience with institutions. Foranother reason, Deno (1971) published her Cascade Model a few years ago, and

many schools use this model to decide the extent to which one placement ismore or less restrictive than another. Dan's model, however: did notdifferentiate among various educational placements within the institution, nor """'rte`did she concern herself with accommodations between the institution and thecommunity: public school.

Yet, another reason why we are in a better position to determine the quality ofplacement in public schools rests with the close relation between IEP's andplacement in the least restrictive environment. As part of the IEP, schoolpersonnel are required to indicate the extent to which a handicapped child canparticipate in the regular eduslation program of his school. The development ofan IEP requires the involvement of a variety of school personnel and the consentof the parent. Thus, a wide range of inputs are solicited for the MP, part ofwhich indicated the least restrictive placement for the child. Public schools hivehad many years experience in "case conferencing" children. Although these caseconferences may have been somewhat diffirent than the law presentlyprescribes, nevertheless many schools have marshilled a variety of personnel todiagnose and place a child. Institutions, for the most part, have not had andstill do not have the capability of gathering shilltirriber of differentprofessionals to do a work-up on a child. This capability will certainly come, butit will take time. In short, public schools have had more experience in decidingon appropriate placements for handicapped children.

The Deno Cascade Model is sufficiently well known that it does not have to berepeated here. Schools can identify the extent to which they are placing childrenin the least restrictive environment by simply referring to that model. However,ttie Deno model interprets best restrictive solely from the vantage of placementwith nonhandicapped children. It omits completely any examination of thequality of educational programming that is provided to the handicapped child.from the present-vantage, the least restrictive environment also offers the mostappropriate education for the handicapped child. Therefore. i order for schoolsto monitor effectively the quality of placement, the must have someinformation on the quality of education that the handicap child receives.

One measure of educational quality which schoolsr easily obtain is the extentto which the handicapped child receives individual attention from his teacher.:.Continua can beoet(ablished which reveal the number of children in a group atany one ti and the amount of time for which the group receives academic (ornonacad ic) instruction. For example, if a handicapped child is seenindivi ally by a special education teacher for 30 minutes per day, three days

of-educational quality (quantity) could be computed as 1/1X 30 X 3, or 90 units, On the other hand, a handicapped child who is seen by aspecialist teacher in groups of 8 for 1 hour each day, five days a week wouldobtain a score of 37.5 (1/8 X 60 X 5). Although this apprc...hto determiningeducation quality (using quantity of individual attention) is based on theuntested assumption that there is a linear relation between the size of an

1781 7

instructional group and the amount of attention a child receives, it does provideat least a gross estimate of the amount of instruction that a handicapped childreceives. Obviously, this general approach for computing instructional deliverycan be used to calculate noninstructional activities which are directed towardhandicapped, or nonhandicapped, children. Additionally, the measure can beyeasily modified to include the ratio of nonhandicapped to handicapped childrenin the group. To illustrate, a group of 10 children,, eight of whom arehandicapped, would require that a multiplier of 4 (8/2) be included in theequation previously described. In order to complete the preceding equation, twoadditional variables must be included: the age of the handicapped child, and theseverity of his handicap., Younger children and children with more serioushandicaps may not be able to benefit from as much individual attention as olderchildren or children with less serious handicap. Therefore, the age of thehandicapped child and severity of his handicap must be quantified and includedin the equation if the intent is to develop a numerical index of placement in theleast restrictive environment. What this equation does is provide greater detailthan the usual teacher-child ratio which is most often confined to expressing the:number of children in a class. It affords the parent (or any other consumer)greater insight into the quality of education that the child receives.

Thus, when attempting to determine the extent to which a handicapped child isbeing provided the least restrictive environment, two criteria can be used. First,the handicapped child's program on the continuum suggested by Deno can beexamined, and/or second, the amount of time that the_ handicapped childreceives instructional attention can be computed, using the simple equation thatwas suggested. This equation can also be used to indicate)the extent to which thehandicapped child participates with nonhandicapped children.

A more general framework for considering placement in the least restrictiveenvironment can be presented as we indicate a model of social adaptation, Themodel indicates not only the areas of functioning that we could examine-todetermine whether a child is performing appropriately in his placement, but alsosuggests more specific variables that could be studied to evaluate theappropriateness of the placement.

AN EDUCATIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON SOCIAL ADAPTATION

In the simplest sense, 'a child's social behavior is adaptive when he is able tointeract successfully with other people in his educational environment. In otherwords. social adaptation refers to patterns of behavior that enable the retardedchild to present himself to others in a positive light, and to achieve desiredresults from the encountet. This interpersonal orientation to the study oflaptive uehavior in school is based on the assumption that the handicapped

child's observable behavior is a major determinant of successful adaptation. thehandicapped child's; observable repertoire of academic and nonae,ademicbehavior attracts social consequences insofar-as it influences the way he interactswith others,. and the way others interact with hint. The dynamic quality ofinterpersonal behavior that the child exhibits signifies to others whether he is aperson with whom they wish to interact, befriend, ignore, or reject. Put anotherway, the observable behavior of, the child i$ self-labeling: it labels him either as acompetent, likeable individual who is worthy of mention, or as an unworthyindividual who is to be ignored or overtly rejected,

t sVficient to consider a handicapped child's beletvior as socially adaptivetclely on the basis of his own rnanifettations Other porticipants to the socialencounter must be considered when making such judgmt 's, as must the socialcontext in which the interaction occurs. A behavioral exp ession can be sociallyadaptive' when directed toward one person, but not another, and similarly,appropriate in one context bet riot another, even whet directed toward the sameindividual, A simple illustration is the child who calf out to the teacher during asilent reading exercise and is greeted with 3 considerably different rheiion thanwhen he calls out during a free play period. Few would disagree that learningwhen to engage in certain behavior and when hie to is itself a eritical element' ofed apt :ye Lrehasior,

A handteappellwit:lr theoho,'! orga'an individual

'd's behaviOr occurs in a variety of social environments, evenriarro r range of environmental options'''imposed by theenerelng on the partie:utar structure and rules governing

dicapped chattier, may interact with handicapped beefsin reguler elessrGrnt, resdurcf, rooms, gymnasiums, lureltroorns.and co, idors.0fferent bella11 ors arc expected in diffitent settings, and school personnel alloweare,ne (fete tel. of latitude for deviations from expected behavior in earh!running rnay he acceptable in he rrt, whispering in the corridors, and silent.* itthe etalciroorn, settene, provides the handicapped with a platform nomwhieh t' display different behavini one that :$ being scrutinized constantly byoeers tux: C.-chrts a!ike._ who rise it to form impressions of the youngster.

The prss;bAiti that children can adapt differently to the many educationalsettings iliustiaritts the corptee, rrtultidirriensinnal nature of social adaptation. A'trust fOut sett okinfNenms could shape the ouality of dtilefren's,suctessful socialadaptertion (al the child's observable behavior, characteristics ofthe peer tel the observtble reactions of the teacher who establishe; znders;roes norms ckt appropriate behavior for her class, and id) the environmentalsettiee, 're t,, eetent that we examine singular and interactive effects o, f these

k:/)vuleCt9e of handicapped childeari's adaptation in school will be'eaty ncr*Id.Ad tt:orrt its Cobsent state in which we know that he is the victim ofnee/Inc vtwi5 and social felectiot (Gottlieb, 197581, but have pray vagueguestes tot why',,th.s is. In this discussion, I vein focus my remarks on the

180

handicapped child's observable behavior and the nature of the environmentalsetting.

BEHAVIOR OF THE HANDICAPPED CHILD

Although there may be some general behavioral patterns common to manymentally retarded children, for the most part each handicapped child is uniqueand behaves in idiosyncratic ways. The distinct stimulus cues that each childemit are constantly evaluated by others, who then use the informatidn to formelaborate and durable portraits of him. The ease with which these portraits areconstructed and the durability of their existence has been commented on byseveral authors, and has been experimentally validated (Kieck, Richardson, &Ronald, 19741. A handicapped child can be considered to be in. the leastrestrictive environment when his observable behavior does not single him out forspecial (negative) attention' rd does not interfere or interferes least with hiseducational performance.

While there is a varied of ways to classify the general characteristics andbehaviors of handicapped children that could affect the quality of theirinterpersonal performance and adaptation to their environment, an elegant anduseful framework was suggested by Richardson (1975) in his discussion, of theways handicapped people become identified. According to Richardson, peoplemay be identified as handicapped on the basis of their behavior, appeance.and/or movement. His framework is employed-in this discussion with a slightmodification. From the present vantage, a handicapped child's socialparticipation in his classroom is influenced by the quality of his interactivebehavior. A few of the myriad ways that interactive behavior could affect theretarded pupil's social experiences are discussed below.

INTERACTIVE BEHAVIOR IN THE CLASSROOM

The)* is little doubt that the way one person behaves with another intluenceshow he is perceived and reacted to by that other person (Gottlieb, 1975b). Inquestion is which specific behavioral act, or series of acts, has the greatest impacton the ongoing flow of interaction. Surprisingly, very little research has beenconcerned with handicapped children's overt behavioral interactions in theclassroom. Most studies of handicapped children's behavior have used ratingscales to obtain measures of behavioral performance. In this way, two broadcategories of children's behavioral performance have been studied as they mightinfluence other people's perceptions: low academic performance or generalintellectual dysfunctioning (Gentler & Madder, 1962) and perceived misbehavior(Gottlieb, 1975b,1975c; Johnson. 1950).

It is immediately obvious, however, that general intellectual dysfunction and/ora general measure of misbehavior are very broad descriptors that lack therrecessarY specificity to describe particular overt acts that occur during a socialencouriter. The most effective way to understand the importance of cognitivedysfunction and misbehavior as contributors to social performance is to narrowthe range of behaviors that are subsumed under each cateday and to idehtifythe most salient individual acts that comprise the larger categoriis.

,,Overt Indices of Cognitive Dysfunction

It is superfluous to say that many handicapped children ethibit poor cognitiveperformance. A more pressing concern is to describe observable patterns ofcognitive dysfunction. Although there are many ways Vo organize a taxonomy ofwitive dysfunctions, for the present purposes it will be useful to considaKose aspects of behavior that are easily observed during a social encounter andare likely to be used by other participants to evaluate the desirability of theindividual. For the sake of simplicity , we will consider retarded children's verbaland nonverbal communication skills as overt indices of cognitive dysfunction.This compact taxonomy is presented to illustrate the potential importance ofthese categories as influencers on handicapped children's social adaptation inclass. Although considerable research has been reported on verbalcommunication, such as language, very little research has dealt with the socialconsequences of language in the classroom or elsewhere.

Verbal Comr,unication Skill.One of the central axioms of social encounters is that people want to presentthemselves in the most favorable light possible. This is often achieved throughtheir facility with verbal communication skills, People communicate for manyreasons to transmit information and feelings, and to evoke approving responsesfrom others (Argyle, 1969). Unfortunately, many handicapped people,especially mentally retarded people, are often deficient in verbal communication

skills. Deficiencies in speech skills, such as in levels of complexity andarticulation, as well as in comprehension skills, are clear signs that a person isfunctioning below an expected norm and is somehow "different" from otherpeople.

Handicapped children's verbal communication abilities are deficient in a numberof ways that could adversely affect their social encounters. They typically havehigher incidences of speech pathologies (Spradlin, 1963), make moregrammatical errors (Carlton & Carlton, 1945), have a more limited vocabulary(Harrison, Sudoff, & Greenberg, 1975), and generally have delayed languageacquisition. Furthermore, they often have a variety of communication deficitsinvolving the use of linguistic codes, and may not be aware that variants of thesecodes are employed in different social settings. For example, while it may be

192

acceptable to use the vernacular when speaking to friends, it may notbe withthe teacher. To present himself as a competent individual worthy of acceptance,the child may have to demonstrate that he is competent in the use of linguisticcodes and that he is able to use codes appropriately in many social settings.

The point emphasized here is that a handicapped child's verbal facility, hasconsequences beyond the role of verbal learning and concept formation skills.Verbal communication skills are likely to exert strong influence on the pupil'ssocial interaction with his pears and research is needed to increase ourunderstanding of the dynamics of these influences. In the context of the presentdiscussion, the least restrictive environment is one in which'the child's verbalcommunication skills are promoted and encouraged. The classroom environmentwhich offers the handicapped child the opportunity to develop proficientcommunication and treiguage skills is the one that is less restrictive to hisdevelopment

Nonverbal Communication Skills.There are many ways other than verbal dialogue that people can presentthemselves to others. During social interaction between two or more people, anumber of nonverbal signals occur parallel with verbal cues, and takentogether, represent the totality of the communication. It is conceivable,how' ever, that nonverbal cues alone, especially inappropriate cues, are salient andcommunicate sufficient information for others to decide how much they valuethe retarded person.

Thire are a number of nonverbal interactive behaviors that both handicappedand normal children could exhibit that would be self labeling when they areinappropriate. For example, there are culturally prescribed, though not formallycodified, rules governing the appropriate use of hard and facial gestures, bodilyposture, interpersonal ..ace, eye gazing, nonverbal aspects of speech such asintonatior, speed, and so forth, as well as positive reinforcers such as noddingapproval. Mehrabian (1971? demonstrated how variations in one participant'snonverbal behavior toward another influenced the latter's ve-bal and nonverbalbehavior,

A number of questions arise when attempting to apply our knowledee ofnonverbal aspects of behavior to handicapping conditions. Oneconcern it whetherthe range and appropriateness of handicapped children's nonverbal behavior isequivalent to their handicapped peers'. Although very little research effort hasbeen directed toward nonverbal aspects of handicapped children's behavior andfew definite answers arA available, the likelihood is that handtcapped children arenot so competent as!their norlhandicapped peers at expressing or interpretingcertain nonverbal el active behavior. At issue is whether the handicapped childrealizes the functi that nonverbal behavior serves-that the nonverbal messageshe emits are into reted by others as true reflections of the way that he feels.

183 1

People interpret a child's frown as an indication that he is sad or angry, and hissmile as an indication that he is happy. However, there is little evidence to theveridicality of the child's nonverbal behavior and the message he wishes tocommunicate. If the handicapped child's nonverbal expressions are not veridicalwith t .e intent of his comrhurication, his social interactions will undoubtedlysuffer. As an example, the child who does not adopt an appropriate facialexpressio,i to indicate that he is sorry for his past infractions is likely todisplease his teacher and exacerbate the situation.

Overt Indices Af Misbehavior

The second major category of behavior that has been studied as it relates to theway handicapped children interact with others is the antisocial/aggressivebehavior they are perceived to exhibit. Since the child's social adaptation inschool is likely to be influenced in large part by the extent of his socialacceptance or lack of rejection, a child who misb :iaves is not likely to besocially acceptable to his peers and consequently is not likely to adapt sociallyto the demands of the classroom group.

Various investigators haVe suggested that a handicapped child's socialfunctioning suffers because ire misbehaves 19aldwin.1958; Johnson,1950); theresearch evidence on this point is not clear, hOwever.

An illustration of the complex nature let relationships between perceivedmisbehavior and social status is evident in 4 study by Gottlieb (1975b): Thestudy examined correlates of social acceptance and rejection of 324 EMRchildren who attended one of 152 schools .l. The results showed a significant6orrelatie ,:etween teachers' and peers' ratkigs of EMR children's perceivedmisbehavior and the EMR children's social rjection scores, but no significantcorrelation between teachers' and peers' ratings and the children's socialacceptance scores. Pe. eived cognitive ability was found to relate significantly tosocial acceptance. These data suggest that (a) social, acceptance and socialrejection are not two ends of a single continuum but may represent two distinctcontinua, (b) attempts to decrease retarded children's social rejection shouldconcentrate on reducing their perceived misbehavior while attempts to increasethe social acceptance of retarded children should concentrate on improving theirperceived academic competence, and (c) greater attention should be paid to theprecise acts by retardednonretarded peers. Fromexamining two categoriesand (b) aogressive behcontribution of each ocontributors to a handica

ildten thet are perceived as misbehavior by theirthis perspective, some specificity can be gained byf misbehavior: fal inappropriate or bizarre behavior,or directed toward another person. The relativethe two categories may be worth examining as

child's social rejection and implicity to his failureto adapt to the social demands of his environment.

184

The Environmental Setting

The second key consideration in determining whether a handicapped child isbeing placed in the least restrictive environment is the nature of the environmentitself. Identical child characteristics, such as those disa'ned previously, mayesult in the child receiving an appropriate education in one classroom but not

another. In other words, the characteristics manifested by the handicapped childinteract with the nature of the enviroffment in which he is situated, and takentogether may constitute an appropriate environment for that child. Theenvironmental determinants which are of especial importance in decidingwhether the handicapped child will be appropriately placed are: la) the nature ofthe peer group, and (b) the behavior of the teacher.

Nature of the Peer Group.It is intuitive that a handicapped child must be placed in a classroom where hewill not be socially ostracii/ed by his classmates. Almost i,Nveriably, handicappedchildren suffer from social and emotion/it-difficulty that accompany theircognitive difficulties. and one of these difficulties is their inability to get alongwith peers. The lack of social acceptance by peers may be one of the reasonswhy handicapped children often misbehave, i.e., the continued frustration of notbeing socially embraced by classmates results in the handicapped child lashingout at his peers.

As was indicated previously in this paper, however, existing data does notsupport the assumption made by educators that mainstreaming would improvethe social acceptance of handicapped peers, in fact, the majority of data suggestthat mainstreamed handicapped children are socielly rejected more often thanwhen they remained in self-contained classes. Under such circumstances, there isonly a remote likelihood that mainstreaming will result in improving the socialadjustment of handicapped chitdren. If handicapped children are to he sociallyaccepted by their classmates, they must be placed in a classroom environmentthat actively promotes such acceptance.

What kinds of classrooms can promote the social acceptance of handicappedCthildren? Available evidence suggests that a warm, supportive C.1353±0001 in whichthere are not children with a clearly assigned inferior social sinus areaceomnarned by !.ornewhat higher social acceptance of handicapped children(Safr.q, Coe man, & Gottlieb, in press). In practical terms, these data indicate thathandicapped children should be placed in regular clasvoorns where the childrendo not display obvious antagonism toward each other,

Thark are other considerations that are important in deciding which classroomPeer groups are likely to promote the handicapped child's educationalperformance, These considerations include the own socioeconomicbackground ,compared with those of his classmates, his race, sex, and level cf

185

academic deficiency comparrj with those of his classmates. However, thegeneral level of friendship among class mpmbers appears to be an especiallyimportant variable that is manipulaole within the context of the regularclassroom, as has recently been demonstrated by Ballard, Corman, Gottlieb, andKaufman (1977). Many or the other variables that impinge on social status suchas sex and race distributions cannot be easily manipulated given the everydayrealities of school.

Behavior of Regular Class Teacher.Just as the handicapped child should not be socially ostracized by hisreehherldieeOPed peers, it is even more critical that he not be socially ostracizedby his classroom teacher. Unfortunately, empirical evidence suggests that regularcless teachers are not usually accepting of handicapped children in their classes

Shotel, lano, & McGettigan, 1972). One reason for these negative feelingsif that regular class teachers often feel inadequate in their ability to deal withhandicapped children (Guerin & Szatlocky, 1975). As a result of these feelipos,regular ohms teachers seldom provide the required individual attention thathandicapped children often need (Agard, 1977). While it is easy to suggest thathandicapped children should be placed only in classrooms where the teachersare accepting of them, this is not always practical. Often, the accept;ng teachershave three or tour handicapped children in their classes while nonacceptingteachers have none. Inakeaci of relying solely on teachers' acceptance levels, agood strategy for placing 'handicapped children is to enroll them in classroomswhere the teacher has a known history of successful experiences with herchildren. This stoemey is based nie,the assumption that teachers who areconfident of their ability teach children "viii be less fearful than other teachersof their ability to each handicapped children. Building principals usually havegood insights into the ability of their teachers, and should be able tc make thesedecisions quite wall.

It should be emphasized that an adequate placement for a handicapped childinvolves deta;teci kno-vledge of behavior ;both cognitive and social) and theenvironment into which tie is being placed. Without bath sets of information, itis doubtful that schools r±iilt be able to demonstrate convincingly that the child isindeed being placed in the environment that is least restrictive for Mill.

Summary as-id Comlutions

Sever* criteria for *.initotirg anti evaluating pleoement ir, the least restrictiveenvironment were rirfriented sr:pare:Ay for inchtiitionel children and childrencurrently erre:lied in re,klic schools.

Plaeernent h the lease rdetrit.e.A environment for children residing in inctituticnsinvolver; several o',nkitiOntiort, Erst, several criteria 'to determine whether

ti

1

institutional personnel were tviak;rig a good faith effort to identify the leastrestrictive placement were suggested. These criteria included the convening ofmeetings to address the problem, adopting more flexible programming withinthe institution, and involving various segments of the community. The secondconsideration for determining whether institutions were placing children in theleast restrictive environment was identifying the criteria to evaluate success ofplacement, Among the criteria suggested were (a) rireduction in the number ofreal of feigned health-related problems of the residents, (b) the extent to whichthe resident explores his new surroundings, (c) the resident's level of behavioraladequacy, and (d) a measure of the quality end intensity of educationalprogramming that each resident receives.

1117

REFERENCES

Abeson, A., & Zettel, J. The end of the quiet revolution: The education for allHandicapped Children Act of 1015. Exceptional Children, 1977, 2,114128.

Argyle, M. Social interaction. Methuen. London, 1969.

Baldwin, W. K. The social position of the educable mentally retarded child in theregular grades in the public schools. Exceptional Children, 1958.25, 106-108, 112.

Ballard, M., Corman, 1.. Gottlieb, J., & Kaufman, M. K. Improving the socialstatus of mainstreamed retarded children. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 1977. 605-611.

Budoff, M & Gottlieb, J. Special class EMil children mainstreamed: A study ofan aptitude (learning potential) X treatment interaction. American Journalof Mental Deficiency, 1976,87, 1-11.

Carlton, T., & Carlton, L. E. Oral English errors of normal children and ofmental defectives. Elementary School Journal, 1945,45, 340-348.

Corman, L., & Gottlieb, J. Mainstreaming mentally retarded children: A reviewof research. In N. R. Ellis ,(Ed.). International Review of Research InMental Retardation (Vol. 9). Now York: Academic Press, in press.

Dentler, R. A,. & Madder, B. Ability and socinr,,etric status among normal andN, retarded children: A review of the literature. Psychological Bulletin, 1962,59, 273-283.

Dunn, Special education for the mildly retarded Is much of itiustifiklq, Exceptional Children, 1968, 34, 5-22.

Geroge,. D. H., Gottlieb, J.. & Harrison, R. H. A crimparison of the classroombehaviors of special class EMR, integrated EMR, ow IQ, and nonretardedchildren. American Journal of Mantel Deficiency, 1974, 79, 18-21.

Goodman, H.. Gottlieb, 1, & HarHson, R. H. Social acceptance of BAR%integrated into a nongraded elementary school. American Journal of

ntal Deficiency, 1972, 76. 412417.

Gottlieb, J. Public. peer, and professional attitudes toward mentally retardedpa sons. In M. J. Begad & S. A. Richardson (Eds.), The Mentally Retardedand Society: A Social Science Perspective.' Baltimore: University ParkPress, 1975a.

let

Gottlieb, J. Predictors of social status among mainstreamed mentally retardedpupils. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Association onMental Deficiency, Portland, Oregon, 1975b.

Gottlieb. J. Attitudes towards retarded children: Effects of labeling andbehavioral aggressiveness. Journal of Educational P4411010914 1975c, 67,581.585.

Gottlieb, J. Observing social adaptation in the schools. In G. P. Sackett (Ed.).Observing Behavior (Vol. 1). Baltimore, Md: University Park Press, 1978.

Gottlieb. J.. Agard, J. A., kaufman, M. J., & Seminal, M. S. Retarded childrenmainstreamed: Practices as they affect minority group children. In R. 1..Jones (Ed.), Mainstreaming and the Minority Child. University ofMinnesota, Minneapolis: Leadership Training InstlibtetSpecial Education,1976.

Gottlieb, 1, & Baker, J. L. The relationship between amount of integration andthe sociometric status of retarded children. Paper presented at the meetingof the American Educational Research Association. Washington, D.C.,1975.

Harri:-on, R. H., Budoff, M., & Greenberg, G. Differences between EMR andnonretarded children in fluency and quality of verbal associations.American Journal of Mental Deficiency. 1975, 79, 581591,

lano, R. P., Ayers, D., Heller, H. B., McGettigan, J. F., & Walker, V. S.Sociometric status of retarded children in an integrative program.

Exceptional Children. 1974,40, 267 -271,

Johnson, G. 0. A study of the social position of mentally handicapped childrenin the regular grades. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1950, 55,6-89.

Kaufman, M. J.. Gottlieb, J Agard, J. A., & Kukie, M. B. Mainstreaming:Toward an explication of the construct. In E. L. Mayen, G. A. Verguson.& R. J. Whelan {Eds.), Alternatives for teaching exceptional children.Denver Love Publishing, 1975.

KIWI, R., Richardson, S. A., & Ronald, L. Physical appearance cues andinterpersonal attraction in children. Child Development, 1974, 45,305.310.

MacMillan, D. L., Jones, R. L., & Aloia, G. F. The mentally retarded label: Atheoretical analysis and review of research. American Journal of MentalDeficiency, 1974, 79, 241-261.

is. 1

Mehrabian. A. Verbal and nonverbal interaction of strangers in a waitingsituation. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 1971, 6;127-138.

Meyers. C. E., MacMillan, D. L., & Yoshida, H. K. Correlates of success intransition of MR to regular class (Final Report. Grant No.OEG-0735263). Pomona, Calif.: U. S. Department of Health, Education,and Welfare, 1975.

Richardson, S. A. Reaction to mental subnormality. in M. J. Begab & S. A.Richardson ;Eds.), The mentally retarded and society: A social scienceperspective. Baltimore: University Park Press. 1975.

Shear*, J. 8. Social acceptance of EMR adolescents in integrated programs.American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1974, 78, 678.682.

Shotel, J. R., tano. R. P., & McGettigan, J. F. Teacher attitude associated withthe integration of handicapped children. Exceptional Children, 1972, 39,677.683.

Spradlin, J. E. Language and communication of mental defectives. In M. R. Ellis(Ed.), Handbook of Mental Deficiency. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1963.

Thurstone, T. G. An evaluation of educating mentally handicapped chiklren inspecial classes and in regular grades. project No. OE SAE-6452). ChapelHill, N.C.: U.S. Office of Educatio.i, Cooperative Research Program, 1969,

Walker, V, The efficacy of the resource room for educating mentally Wattledchildren. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Temple University, 1972,

e

1".S0

14.4.0,-`

SECTION IV

Integration of Severely Handicapped StudentsToward Criteria for Implementing and Enforcing

the Integration Imperative ofP.L. 94-142 and Section 504

Thomas K Gi ShootE.Zward A. Stutman

GILHOOL, THOMAS K. Mr. Gi lhool practices law at the Public Interest LailCenter r,f Philadelphia. He received his LLB from Vale University and was aFulbright. Scholar at the London School of Economics. Mr. Gilhool was counselfor the Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens in PARC v.Commonwealth. the 1971 right to education case. and in Haldeman v.Pennhurst State School and Hospital, the recent right to community servicescase. He represented 13 disability and elderly organizations the TRANSBUSGroup in Lloyd v. Regional Transit, the first Appeals Court decision construingSection 504. Mr. Gilhool has also written, lectured and taught extensively.

STUTMAN. EDWARD A. Mr. Stutman presently practices law at the PublicInterest Law Center of Philadelphia. He served as co-counsel in Pennhurst, trtti iscounsel in Fialkowski voShapp, an action aimed at enforcement of die original1971 PARC court injunctions. Mr. Stutman received his .!.L.), from the TempleUniversity Law School. He has presented, lectured and written on disabilityrelated law, most particularly in education.

192

INTRODUCTION

Nicholas Hobbs has called P.L. 94.142 the most conservative piece of Sociallegislation adopted by the Congress in ISO years," At the heart of the new andbinding national policy on the education of handicapped children, articulated inP.L. 94.142, in its predecessor 1974 EHA Amendments and in Section 504 ofthe Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the dongress has placed the integrationimperative.

.In plain language, the Congress in P.L. 94.142 alas required the States toestablish

Procedures to assure the, to the maximum eat t appropriate. handicappedchildren. including children in public or prises, inut.utions.are educated withchildren who are not handicapped.. 20 U.SC. Satt.1412(51(9)

In Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Congress extended tohandicapped persons verbatim. the protections extended to racial and nationalorigin minorities by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, namely:

No otherwise qualified handicapped individual in the United States ...shag,solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from participation in, be deniedthe benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program oractivity receiving Federal financial assistance.

The task of this paper is to suggest concrete, operational Criteria to measurecompliance with the integration imperative. It will suggest criteria to ascertainwhether compliance is occurring by scrutinizingboth (I) the education of eachindividual handicapped child and (2) the structure and performance of a schoolsystem, both locAI school districts 11.EA) and statewide education departments(SEA/.

The tirst tusk in defining implementation and enforcement criteria is todetermine what compliance is.- What is it that the integration imperativerequirest'lf the legal requirement is fully implemented, what state of facts willobtain what will school systems look like and where and how will theschooling of individual handicapped children proceed? Then criteria can bearticulated to measure the acilievernent of compliance -- whether, and to whatdegree compliance has been achieved, and how further the achievements ofCompliance can be advanced, and, in the language of P.L. 94-142, "assured."

The first task therefore is to determine the meaning and the content of theintegration imperative, As W. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr, wrote loil4 ago:

The Legislature has the power to decide what the policy of the law shall be.

19193

er

and if it has intimated its will, however indirectly, that will should berecognized and obeyed.

Johnson v. United States, 164 F. 30, 32(1st Cir. 1908) (on circuit). Todetermine the meaning of the statutes, the darting point is "the plain languageof the statute itself, "Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409, 420 (1968); inaddition, one must look to the historical context of the statute. Territory ofHawaii 14 Monkichi, 198, U.S. 197, 211 (1903), previous relet3d legislation,8urmet v. Hormel. 287 U.S. 103, 108 (1932), the overall legislative dfletne or- -plan, United States v. Katz, 272 U.S. 364, 347 (1926). the evil the statute wasdesigned to remedy Rae foly Trinity Church v. United States. 143 U.S.457, 463-65 (1892), the srr the legislation. United States v. Guaranty TrustCo., 280 U.S. 478, 485 (1940). and its legislative history, Federal TradeCommiss'on v. Mandel Bros., ant 359 U.S. 385.388 (1359).

Thus, for the purposes of determining precisely the meaning of the integrationimperative and its scope, Chapter I of this paper will examine:

1. the historical contest of P.L. 94-142 and Section 504:2. the legislative history of the enactments, including3. the social and educational facts. of which Congress took note,upon which

the Congress based the integration imperative, and in light of which it mustbe applied;

4, the court cases which generated P.L. 94.142 and Section 504, and to whichthe Congress had reference;

5, the court cases, and the federal regulations interpreting and applying P.L.94-142 and Section 504.

As the reader will see, being very clear about the meaning of the statutes'integration imperative sharpens considerably the focus of implementation andenforcement. For example. frequently in discussion of the statutes some AO willsay that P.L. 94.142 and Section 504 require a "continuum of educationalsettings", from mainstreamed classrooms to special schools. It is true that. P.1..94-142 and Section 504 contemplate a variety of educational settings forhandicapped children and perhaps the variety can *cc rately be called a"continuum." However, analysis of the meaning of the statutes shows thatcertain settings are generally impermissible under the law, e.g.. segregated specialeducation centers and institutions. Thus, imPlernenteinn and enforcement canfocus, e.g.. on the necessity of moving self-contained special classes to schoolsettings where non-handicapped children are being educated, and,straightforward measures of compliance, or non-compliance, become possible.

counting,the number of handicapped-only facilities; goals and timetablesfor converting.

Analysis of the meaning of the statutory imperative clarifies the respective

functions of two ARE implementation devices: ±1) individual-by-individual leastrestrictive environment (IRE) determinations, requited_ .P.L. 94-142_Regulations on IRE 4121 a. 550ff; and as a part of each and individualizededucation plan OEM, 4121 a. 346 (d), and (2) systemwide planning,construction and assignment and application plans, of LEAs and SEAs,Regulations 8121 a. 132, $121 a. 601.1121 a. 227,0121 a. 232.3121 a. 236. As apractical matter, the first device can and often does function to assure placementits the most integrated setting among the settings aysilable for the appropriateeducation of a particular individual. Individualized determination proceduresshould, but as a practical matter usually do not, functi9n to change the numberand kind of alternative settings which are in fact available whether by phasisigout impermissible settings or by generating an increased number and kind ofmandated integrated settings. The burden of changing what is available must bedischarged by systematic planning, reporting ana enforcement mechanisms. Theintegration mandate cannot be implemented by individualizing devices alone. Itmust be enforced directly upon the LEAs and SEAs by measuring and correctingthe kind of settings which are available in each local and state school system, forabsent serious enforcement what is available wilt be used. And what is availabledeparts significantly from what must be.

The fact is, as Brown. Wilcox, Sontag, Vincent, Dodd & Grunwald, "Towardthe Realization of the least Restrictive Educational Environments for SeverelyHandicapped Student," Review, American Association for the Education of theSeverly/Profoundly Handicapped , vol. 2, No. 4, p. 196 (December, 1977) pointout:

While there may appear to be a continuum of service delivery optionsavailable, the predominant models currently in use are self-contained schoolson the grounds of residential facilities and self-contained private and publicschools.

The Congress has required that that reality be changed. Thus focused, Chapter 11of this paper will seek to specify implementation and enforcement mechanismsnecessary and sufficient to accomplish the mandated integratioi,

CHAPTER I: THE MEANING OFTHE INTEGRATION IMPERATIVE

1. The Historical Context ofP.L. 94-142 and Section 504

On several counts Nicholas Hobbs' estimation of P.L. 94-142 is surely correct.That statute, and Section 504, are profoundly conservative (1) in the placethey give parents and children in the design and direction of publiceducation; (2) in their reversal of patterns of separation and isolation imposedupon disabled people since the mid-19th century; and (3) in their affirmative

196 194

valuation of the competences, however discounted heretofore, of all peopleincluding disabled people.

The immediate professional context of these enactments the history ofmid twentieth century discoveries (or rediscoverieg) of the capacities of disabledpeople, of teaching and learning techniques to evoke those capacities and themore or less wide distribution of knowledge of those techniques among schoolpeople, and other service agents in our society is well knows) to the readers ofthis paper, as the legislative history of 94-142 and Section 504, show it was wellknown to the Congress, and will not be repeated here. See, 04., Council forExceptional Children Policies Commission, "Organization and Administration ofSpecial Education", Exceptional Children, 1971, vol. 37, pp. 428-33; Roos,"Trends and Issues in Special Education for the Mentally Retarded," Educationand Training of the Mentally Retarded, Vol. 5, No. 2 (April, 1970); Stevens &Heber, Mental Retardation: A Review of Research, especially the chapters byKirk, Denny, and Goldstein (1964); Goldberg and Lippman, The Right toEducation: An Anatomy of the Pennsylvania Case (Columbia Teachers CollegePress, 1973). See generally, Weintraub, Abeson, Ballard & Lavor, Public Policyand the Education of Exceptional Children (C.E.C., 1976).

The expression of these themes in the law is less well known. Each of them wasarticulated more than fifty years ago by the United States Supreme Court inMeyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390,399401 (1923) the first right to educationcase, striking down a war-time statute which forbade schooling in German:

(T)he liberty guaranteed . .. by the Fourteenth Amendment ... denotes notmerely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individualto acquire useful knowledge . .

The American People have always regarded education and acquisition ofknowledge as matters of supreme importance which should be diligentlypromoted . . Corresponding to the right of iciworbl. it it the natural duty ofthe parent to give hit children education sui to their station in life, andPearly all the states enforce this obligation by compulsory laws.

(T)he right of parents to engage (a teacher) to instruct their children (inGerman) it within the liberty of the Amendment. (T)he legislature hasattempted (unconstitutionally) to interfere . with the opportunities ofpupils to acquire knowledge, and with the power of parents to control theeducation of their own.

Mr. Justice McReynolds, the most conservative Justice ever to sit on tileSupreme Court, joined together themes of parental influence, integration, and anindividualized appreciation, and pursuit, of the competence of all people. TakingPlato's Ideal Commonwealth as his counterpoint, McReynolds wrote:

196

For the welfare of his Ideal Commonwealth, Hato suggested a law whichshould provide: "That the wives of our guardians are to be common, and theirchildren are to be common, and no parent is to know his nwn child, nor anychild his parent ... . The proper officers will take the offspring of the goodParents to the pen or fold, and . . . will deposit them with certainbut the offspring of the inferior, or of the better when they chance to bedeformed, will be put away in some mysterious', unknown pluc . as theyshould be.

But, for the Court, Justice McReynolds declared:

Although such measures have been de..Oerately approved by mec of greatgenius, their ideas touching the relation between individual and State werewholly different from those upon which our institutions rest; and it hardlywill be affirmed that any Legislature could impose such restrictions upon thepeople of a State without doing ViOtelICO to both the letter and spirit of theConstitution.

The constitutional presumption, thus, is inclusive, individualizing, andinteyiatiye. For an extended Asussion of this case and of the more recenteducation cases which informed' the Congressional enactments, see Gilhool,"PARC, Lau Rodriquez, and individualized Eciucation", Cross Reference: AJournal of Public Policy and Multicultural Education, vol. 1, No. 1, p. 23 (J. 8.Lippincott Company, 1978).

Twenty-five years ago, in Brown V. Board of Education, the Supreme Courtagain articulated the themes and applied them to bar the segregation of schoolchildren by race. The unanimous Brown Court said:

(Education) is required in the performance of our most basic responsi-bilities.... It is the very foundation of good citizenship, Today it is aprincipal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparinghim for later . training, and in helping him adjust normally to hisenvironment. In these days. it is doubtful that any child may reasonably beexpected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an educeSuch an opportunity where the state has undertaken to provide it, is awhich must be made available to all on equal terms, (Emphasis added)

John W. Davis, counsel for the State of South Carolina in brown, hadanticipated the application of Brown's integrati "n ruling to disabled children.

Opposing integration, he opened his argument to the Brown Court,

May it please the Court, I think if appeliants' construction of the FourteenthAmendment should prevail here, there is no doubt in my mind that it wouldcatch the Indian within its grasp just as much as the Negro. If it should prevail.I am unable to see why a state would have any further right to sevagett itsPupils on the ground of sex or on the ground of age or on the ground of mentalcapacity. L. Friedman, ed. Argument 51 (1960).

197

196

Indeed in the pre-Brown cases, before it ruled that separate schooling wasinherently unequal, the Court had struck down segregation by race in termsand/or reasons which apply directly to segregation ofdisabled people. In Sweattv. Painter, 339 U.S. 629, 634 (1950), striking down segregated law schools, theCourt had said:

A) Ithough the law is a highly learned profession. we are well aware that it isan intensely practical one. The law school, the proving ground for legallearning and practice, cannot be effective in isolation from the individuals andinstitutions with which the law interacts. Favi students and r.o one who haspracticed law would choose to study in an academic vacuum, removed fromthe interplay of ideas and the exchange of views with which the law isconcerned. Thi law school to which rims is willing to admit petitionerexcludes from its student body members of the racial groups which number85% of the population of the Stets and include most of the lawYers, witnesses,jurors, judg ::s and other officials with whom petitioner will inevitably bedealing when he becomes a member of the Texas Bar. With such a substantialand significant segment of society excluded, we cannot conclude that theeducation offered petitioner is substantially equal to the.. which he wouldreceive if admitted to the University of Texas Law School. (Emphasis added)

in McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637, 64142 (1960), strikingdown segregation in graduate schools of education, the Court had said:

The State. . .. sets McLaurin apart from the other students. The result is thatappellant is handicapped in his pursuit of effective graduate instruction. Suchrestrictions impair and inhibit his ability to study. toengage in discussions andexchange views with other students, end, in general, to learn his profession."

It may be argued that appellant will be in no better position when theserestrictions are removed. for tie may still be set apart by his fellow students.This we think irrelevant. There is a vast difference a Constitutionaldifference between restrictions imposed by the state which prohibit theintellectual commingling of students, and the refusal of individuals tocommingle where the state presents no such bar . The removal of the staterestrictions will not necessarily abate individual and woup predilections,prejudices and choices. But at the very least, the state will not be deprivingappellant of the opportunity to secure acceptance by his fellow students onhis own mer.ts.

We conclude that the conditions under which this appellant is required toreceive his education deprive him of his personal and present right to the equalprotection of the laws. (Emphasis added)

For a discussion of the requirements of equal protection in education and inother services to disabled people, see Gilhool, "The Right to CommunityServices", chapter 7 in President's Committee on Mental Retardation, TheMentally Retarded Citizen and the Law, 172 (M. Kindred, et al. eds., The FreePress. 1976) and see Haldermen, et at v. Pennhurst State School and Hospital,

19/ 198

F. Supp. (E. D. Pa. 1977) (C. A. No. 74.1345, Slip Opinion of December 23,1977, pp. 53.64, 67-69).

That disabled people, including disabled children, are citizens of these UnitedStates and are entitled to the protections extended to citizens is now establishedbeyond doubt. See Karst, The Supreme Court 1976 Term Forward: "EqualCitizenship Under the Fourteenth Amendment, 91 Harvard L. Rev. (Nov.,1977).

2. The Legislative History ofP.L. 94-142 and Section 504.

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution provides "No State shall . .

deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides, "The Congress shall havepower to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Inenacting Section 504 of the Rehab' ation Act of 1973, the EHA Amendmentsof 1974 and the EAHCA of 1975, the Congress acted pursuant to thisFourteenth Amendment's power to enforce the, Equal Protection Clause, as thelegislative history of each enactment and the express words of the preambles ofP.U. 94.142 that it was adopted "in order to assure equal protection of thelaw", P.L. 94-142 53 (b) (9).

The three statutes are to be read together Kruse v. Campbell. 431 F. Supp. 180,185-86 (E. D. Va., 1977) (three judge court) vacated and remanded for a

decision on 6504, rather than constitutional grounds, 98 S. Ct. 38 (1977). Seealso Analysts of Final Regulations Under Part B. EHA, 42 Fed. Reg. 42504(August 23, 1977); Background and Analysis of Final Regulations under Section504, 42 Fed. Reg. 22677 and 22690 (May 4, 1977).

What then does the legislative history of Section 504 and P.L. 94.142, and itspredecessor 1974 EHA Amendments, show to have been the purposes of theCongress and the meaning of the provisions which require (in P.L. 94.142 and itspredecessor):

procedures to assure that, to the maximum extent apProPriate.,handicaPPedchildren, including children in public or private in.nitutions, are educated withchildren who arc not handicapped. 20 U.S.C, Section 1412 (51 OIL

(and in Section 504):

no otherwise qualified handicapped individual .. . shall, solely by reason of hishandicap, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, orbe subjected to discrimination under aay program or activity receiving federalttnancial Pssistance. Section 504.

199 190

Section 504 of Title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was adoptedunanimously by the Congress (1973 Congressional Quarterly Almar.ac, page 557at seq.) and signed into law by the President on September 26, 1973.*

Section 504 tracks verbatim the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of1964 "and extends to all handicapped people the protections long extended ongrounds of race and national origin, namely, the prohibition of exclusion, ofdenial of benefits and of discrimination under any federally assisted program oractivity. Like Title VI, Section 504 has legislated the requirements of theconstitutional norms of equal protection.

The Congress' choice of Title VI language suggests that the integrationimperative is central to Section 504, as it has been to all other Civil Rights Acts.

The legislative history of Section 504 itself confirms that the Congress intendedthat this Civil Rights Act should end the segregation of handicapped people.

Section 504 was originally introduced in 1971-72 as a bill to include thehandicapped in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Introducing the bill in the Senateon January to, 1973, Senator Humphrey, its primary sponsor there, said

I introduce . a bill to insure equal opportunities for the handicapped byprohibiting needless discrimination in programs receiving federal financialassistance .

The time has come when we can no longer tolerate the invisibility of thehandicapped in America . I am calling fnr punlic attention to three-fourths

'For purposes of Title V of the Act, "handicapped individual" is defined as

LA I ny person who (A) has a physical or mentalnowt/nem which substantially limits one or more of

such person's major life activities, f8) hose record of suchan impairment, or IC) is regarded as having such animpairment. 29 U.S.C. Section 706(6).

"Title VI, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000d provides:

No person in the United States shall, on the ground ofrace, color or national origin, be excluded fromParticipation in, be denied he benefits of, or be subjectedto discrimination under any program or activity receivingFederal financial assistance.

"The statements of a sponsor as to legislative purpose am entitled togreat weight, Brannan v. corning Glass Works, 480 F. 2d 1254, 1260.61 (3rd Cu.1973), Gartner v. Solnet. 348 F. 2d 348, 353 (3rd Cie, 1967),

200

of the Nation's institutionalised mentally retarded, who live in public andprivate residential facilities which are more than 50 years old, functionallyinadequate, and designed simply to isolate these persons from society .

These people have the right to live, to work to the best of their ability toknow the dignity to bohich every human being is entitled. But too often wekeep children, whom we regard as 'different' or a 'disturbing influence' out ofour schools and community activities altogether . , Where is thecost-effectiveness in consigning them to . 'terminal' cars an institution?

(M] ore than 1 million children are denied entry into pub..: schools, even toParticipate in special classes. The National Association for Retarded Childrenreports. for example, that only 48 percent of the 94.000 educable mentallyretarded school age children and youth in Ohio are provided for in the Pubschool system, with the rest being in private schools or not in any school pro-gram. .

We do not even have adequate statistical information on the great number ofphysically handicapped children who have the mental ability to attend(public] school but are denied that right. The variety of explanations for thisdenial include problems of transportation and architectural barriers. But theinjustice of exclusion remains .. .

These are people who can and must be helped to help themselves. That this istheir consitutional right is clearly affirmed in a number of recent decisions invarious judicial Jurisdictions.* (Emphasis supPlied)115 Chet. Rec. 525(January 20. 1972).

*Senator Percy, the co-sponsor of the bill, referenced in his statement, 118Cong. Rec. 526. a concurrent resolution he had introduced the previous November,117 Cong. Rec. 4229394 (November 19, 1971) and which was based upon theUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Mentally Retarded Persons, adopted bythe United Nations General Assembly on December 20, 1971 (2027th Plenarymeeting). That concurrent resolution provided in relevant part!

(2) A mentally or physically handicapped person has theright . to such education, training, rehabilitation, andguidance as will enable that person to develop his abilityend potential to the fullest possible extent, no matterhow severe his or her degree of disability

(4) A mentally or physically handicapped person has aright to live with his or her own parents or with fosterPatents. to participate in all aspects of community life,and to be provided with appropriate leisure timeactivities.

Senator Percy's statement on the resolution. like Humphrey's on the bill, emphasizedthat "it is intolerable to hide the teindicapped" in institutions which were created inthe last century out of a belief that the handicapped ware "hopelessly incapable",and which provide "little mote than physical sustenance" at a very high cost for thelifetime of a mentally handicapped person", when it was now established that "eventhe most severely handicapped" can learn and thrive, if the proper services areprovided, in a community environment.

201 200

In a statement delivered September 28. 1972, Senator Humphrey illuminatedthe bill's targeted class:

(1) his bill correctly emphasizes the need to serve more severely handicappedindividuals, to make services responsive to individual needs, and to make everyeffort to enable handicapped persons to lead a productive and financiallyindependent life, Cong. Rec. 32310.

On March 22, 1972. announcing additional- sponsors, Senator Humphreyagain addressed the bill and its purposes.

'this bill reltrancieclz ato_Lteiskerting public interest in millions of handicappedchildren, youth. and adults Wheesuffar the profound indignity and despair ofisolation. discrimination and mattreatmetrir-ft-is-eSsential thet the right ofthese forgotten Americans to equal protection under theta-WI-be effectiyek,enforced ....

(T l he fundamental fact that one confronts is . . . the segregation of millionsof Americans from society - suggesting a disturbing viewpoint that thesepeople are not only forgotten but perhaps expendable. (Emphasis supplied).118 Cong_ Rec. 9405,

The point of the bill, Senator Humphrey-said.41-ffiedeorecisefrirra-WasitimjtorrEvening Star series entitled "The Expendables" which lay before the public "thetrur story of exclusion and inadequate concern experienced by the handicappedin the Washington area," a state of facts the bill was intended to,cavict. At Thecenter of the story, laid before the Congress by Senator Humphrey, 118 Cong.Rec. 9498. 9500-01, was the following:

The lack of community resources is keeping institutions for the mentallyretarded filled above capacity , . The new movement in other states ofdeveloping group home - small living units in the community for the retarded-- is lust beginning in the Washington area.

The deliberate segregation of the handicapped and their resulting invisib4-Yhave led to their traditionally low rating on the ant:wily list of educational andcommunity programs.

Beyond the inadequate funding, the incomplete programs for the handicappedin public schools, and the sorely neglected state institutions, there is a largerissue at stake these days It deals with the basic relationship hetwoenhandicapped people and the socallod 'normal society.'

So far, what- has become known as the 'normalizatiein principle' is usuallydiscussed when dealing with the retarded, the largest category of handicappedpeople, but its implications apply to other handicaps as well.

The principle has been defined by Bengt Nirie, a specialist on the retarded inSweden, where the principle is being practiced, as 'making available to the

-

mentally retarded patterns and conditions of everyday life which areas ableas possible to the norms and patterns Of the mainstream of society.'

Many specialists in the field of educating handicapped children agree thatchildren at the trainable or moderately retarded level do not need specialclasses. But . that the traditional approach of segregating these children inseparate schools or isolated daises within regular school buildings . . iswrong.

The isolation of the moderately retarded dates from a time when educatorsfelt that because children of this level of retardation often took and act,different'y horn normal children they should be sheltered for their own goodor the 'protection' of normal children.

(SI Mei& fists ergue that if the objective of education for the retarded or for ,the deaf, blind and physically handicapped children is to give them everythence to five as normal a life as possible in society, they must have early andfrequent contacts with normal thildren,

Society has found it easy to segregate the handicapped, because it does notview the hidden and invisible people as a direct threat:Handicapped childrenare unlikely to ever march on the school board and retarded adults have neverbeen known to stage a revolt in a state institution, (Emphasis supplied),

On September 26, 1972, Senator Humphrey noted the inoorporation of theprotections and prohibitions of the bill to amend 'the 1964 Civil Rights Act intoa hill amending the Rehabilitation Act, and again articulated the bin overridingpurpose:

I am deeply gratified at the inclusion of thew provisions which carry throughthe Intent of the original bills to end the virtual isolation of millions ofchildren and adults from society. 118 Cong Rec. 32310. (Emphasissupplied),

Congressman Vanik, the primary spunsor of the bill in the House, articulated thevery same purposes to the bill, On December 9. 1971, introducing the bill, 1174aCong. Rec. 4597475. Congressman Vanik stated its purposes and the wits it Wasmeant to remedy, as follows:

In an effort to provide increased assistance and 'Quail opportunity for thehandicapped of our Nation, I am today introdufing legislation to provideequal treatment of the handicapped in all progrims which receive Federalassistance

The masses of the handicapped hue and struggle amcng us, often shuntedaside, hidden and ignored. How have we as a nation treated these feillowcitizens?

1*

Cl

MEV

5t

a

P03 2112 ur

"In the past, the reason for excluding this* children from their right to aneclucitioa has neveebean very clear oAt times, handicapped children were seenas a physical threat or as uneducable. In one case a court ruled that a cerebralpalsied child, who was not a physical threat and was acacksrnicallY combefifive,should be excluded ;Tom public school, because his .eacher claimed hisphysical appearance 'produced a nauseating effect' on his classmates.

Today the handicapped are generally a hidden population... But the/in* hascome when we can no longer tolerate the invisibility of the bandit:Wed inAmerica. (Emphasis Supplied/

In the Rchabilitation Act Amendments of 1974cthe Congress redefined the term"handicapped individual" as used in Section 504, in order to clarify The scope of504's coverage, 29 US.C. Section 7W6). In so do .1g, the Congress reaffirmedits intention in Section 504 to reach "all of the many forms of potentia'discrimination" against handicapped individuals, S. Rep. 93-1297, p. 38:4 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin. News 6389 0974 The Congress made explicit what wasimplicit throughout the earlier legislative history, namely, that "where appli-cable, Section 504 is intended to include a requirement of affirmative action aswell as a prohibition against dis::,,rnination." S. Rep. at 39; 4 U.S. Code Cong. at6390: And the Congrets gavb explicit recognition that Section 504 creates aprivate right of action:

The sectiOn, conttitutec-the establishment of a Woad government policythat prOgrams receiving Federal financial assistance shall be operated withoutdiscrimination or the basis of handicap... 1111 is clearly mandatory in form... and (wouldj permit a itidiciai Nemethy through a private action:' S. Rep. at40141, 4 tit Code Cong. at 639041.

a

P.L. 91380Report No. 93.805 of the :douse Committee on Educk*prt and Laboraccompanying P.L. 93.380 to the floor of Congress stated the intention of thelegislation, at the same time focusing on "high priority" children, that is to say,the children, among all, provided no education for the longest period °if time:

Since t967 the states have been required under section 6134) ,o4 theEducation of the Handicapped Act to maintain a plan for the eckication Ofhandicapped children. This amendment requires that the plan now include anhandicapped children. 1974 U.S. Code Cong. & Adm. News, 4146

IG) ood education programs are an investment rather than merely anexpenditu.-e of funds, for even the most severely handicapped child can bemade tesS dependent through education. Given the opportunity, such childrencan become self-sufficient, productive members of our society, rather thanremaining dependent on society. Therefore, from both a humanitarian and aneconomic standpoint, it is obvious that an adequate education should be madeavailable now for all handicapped children.

the inability of the states to provide for more than 40% of these handicappedchildren and the higher cost of education for the severely handicapped places acritical responsibility on the Federal Government to share costs with statesand local communities and be the catalytic agent which stimulates activity forthe handicapped. The Committee feels a strong responsibility to see that theseindividuals receive the educational services they need.

To encourage desegregation of existing facilities (primarily residentialinstitutions), the Committee recommended:

allow[ing) each state, for the purposes of determining its [financial)allotment to continue to count children who leave educational institutionssupported by the state, provided that the special educational services.continueto be provided, It is the Committee's hope that this provision will afford thegreatest encouragement to* the states to initiate and accelerate programsdesigned to de institutionalize as many of these children aspossible. (Emphasis supplied) Id. at 4115.

In P.L. 93.380. Congress articulated the integration imperative, by requiringstate plans submitted for federal funding include provisions and procedures toinsure handicapped children are "to the maximum extent appropriate. educatedwith those who are not handicapped." That expression was generally lauded onthe floor, with most Congressional debate focused on the fundirr formula.

P.C. 94 742Senate Report No. 94.168 of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfareaccompanied the bill, co-sponsored by twenty-eight Senators. 121 Cong. Rec.110962. to the floor of the Senate on June 18. 197:, , 1975 U.S, Code Cong. &Adm. News 1425. That Report stated:

205

204

This legislation was Ode Melly introduced at S. 3614 on May 16. 1972. Itfollowed e arias of landmark court ova sitsiblishing in law the right toeducation for all handicapped ,chilchen. Since those initial decisions in 1971and 1972 end with simiter titliii01111 in 27 S:etas, it is clear today that this"right to education" is no longer in question.

Ir 1954, the Supreme Court of the United Statesestablished the principle thatet children be guaranteed sou"' educational opportunity. The Court stated:'In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expt'eted tosucceed in lift, if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such anopportunity is a right which must be made available to all on equalterms.' Woven v. Spend of Education)

More recently the F 'duel cases of Pennsylvania Associetior. for RetardedChildren v. Pennsylvenie and Mills v 1041114 of Education of District ofColt mbia were decided. These rullop guarantee the right to freeoubliciv1u0Portnd educetiun for her dice,.pati children and hove resulted insimilar *nun actions in the State and Federal courts throughout ourNation. S. Rep. 94-168, p. 6.

"The Education Amendrrtents of 1974 incorporated the major principles of theright to education cases", S. Rep. 94.168, p. 8 recites, including requiring theStates to "establish procedures to insure that to the maximum extentappropriate handicapped children. . . are educated with children who are nothandicapped." The Committee (at p. 9) underscores its intention to assurecompliance:

Parents of handicapped children all too frequently are not able to advocate therights of their children because they have been erroneously led to believe thnttheir children will not be able to teed meaningful lives. However, over the pastfew years, parents of handicapped children hove begun to recognize that theirchildren are being denied services which are guaranteed under theConstitution, '1 not, however, be necessary for parents throughout thecountri to ceH itilizing the courts to assure themselves si remedy. It isthis Committee :.cif that the Congress must teas a more active role underits responsibility for equal protection of the lava to guarantee thathandicapped children are provided *oust educational opportunity. It can nolonger be the policy of the Government to merely establish an unenforceablegoat requiring alt children to be in school. S. t3 takespositive necessary steps toInsure that the right of children and their familiesare protected.

Senator Rando'ph, the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Handicappedopened debate. Because of the bill's integration requirement, he emphasized theimportance of "inservice training of general and special educational personnel"(emphasis supplied). "Continuous Darning", he said, "is virtually necessary...

Teachers must receive treinag that not only provides technical assistancenecessary to teach nandicapped children, but also deals with the potentialProblem of attitudinal barriers. 121 Cong. Rec. 1109641

206

Senator Stafford, the ranking minority member of this Subcommitteehighlighted, 121 Cong. Rec. $10961, three provisions of the bill, first, theindividual plannillg conferences, with respect to whittilie noted especially theirusefulness to the teacher givbn the integration mandate:

As we took more and more toward children with handicaps being educatedwith their %miner Nom we must realize and try to alleviate the burden putupon the teacher it is hoped that participation in these conferences willhave a positive effect on the attitude of the teacher toward the child, and anunderstanding of the child's problems in relating to his or her peers because ofa mindicopping condition. (Emphasis Supplied)

Second, he called attention to the priority the bill gives to "those with the mostsevere handicaps who have traditionally received only minimal attention." Inemphasizing the priority to severely handicapped children, Senator Stafford, asother s throughout the legislative history, did not say or suggest or even hint thatthe severely handicapped were excepted from the integration imperative. Indeed,exactly in the context of the severely handicapped, he immediately proceeded tonote the bill's provisions "for the removal of architectural barriers so thatchildren may attend the same schools which children without such handicapsmay attend", and to adumbrate the reasons for the integration provision:

For far too long handicapped children have been denied access to the regularschool system because of an inability to climb the steps to the schoolhousedoor, and not for any other reason. This has led to segregated classes for thosechildren with physical handicaps. This is an isolation that is in many casesunnecessary. It is an isolation for the handicapped child and for the 'normal'child as well. The sooner we are able to bring the two together, the more likelythat the attitudes of each toward one another will change for the batter.

I firmly believe that if we are to teach all of ow children to love andunderstand each other, we must give them every opportunity to see what'different' children are like.

If we allow and, indeed, encourage handicapped children and nonhandiceppedchildren to be educated together as early as possible, their attitudes towardeach other in later his will not be such obstacles to overcome. A child whogoes to sotto(); everyday with another child who is confined to a wheelchairwill understand far better in later life the limitations and abilities of such anindividual when he or she is asked to work with, or is in a position to hire,such an individual.

Senators Cranston and Mondale reiterated those themes, 121 Cong. Rec. 110981Senator Mondale, in articulating the central problem to be corrected by theCongressional judgment of the traditional relationship between segregation ofhandicapped children and the adequacy of their schooling, made explicit thebill:

207 206

In the pest, many children have simply been p vted In institutions orsegregated in schools and claw with little enttlhaste an adequate educationand training. (Emphasis Supplied)

See also Senator Dole's remarks on segregation at 121 Cong. Rec. 18977. TheSenate passed the bill, 83 to 10.121 Cong. Rec. t10983.

The House considered its bill on July 29, 1975. 121 Cong. Rec. H7750 ff.,passing it on a vote of 375 to 44. Congressman Miller, a ranking member of theHouse Committee on Select Education,potecljhe.ttilrs. t'safegtords-agatnirtliirunnecessary placing of nonhandicapoed children (sic) in segregated dassee, 121Cong. Rec. H7764, and articulated the presumption of value that the Congress(in sharp distinction to the then Secretary of HEW) attached to integration:

Lastly I would like to mention the incredulity with which I read of Mr.Weinberger's reluctance to endorse the concept of mainstreaming children,that is. the piecing of handicapped children in the least restrictive educationalenvironment. It song to me that the logic which he employs on the final pageof his letter to Mr. RHODES, 'the assumption of mainstreerning childrenelw represents the most effective means of educating handicapped childrenhas not yet been shown.' is extremely faulty. I t4o not believe that the burdenof proof should be upon that administrator or teacher who seeks to permit thehandicapped child to remain in a normal classroom with his peers.

Rather. I believe the burden of proof in terms of the effectiveness of aprogram ought to rest with that administrator or teacher who seeks for oneninon or another to remove a child from a normal classroom,to format* himor her from northendicappod children, to place him in a program of specialeducation. (Emphasis added)

The Joint Explanatory Statement of the Confer ice Committee (S. Conf. Rep.No. 94-455; 1975 U.S. Code Cong. & Adm. News 1480 ff.) makes clear that theConference Committee's acceptance of the House language in the definition of"special education" which includes reference to "instruction in hospitals andinstitutions" was not intended to legitimate institutions or other segregatedcenters as sites for schooling handicapped children:

The Conferees point out that while instruction may take piece in suchlocations as classrooms, the child's home, or hospitals and institutions, thedelivery of such instruction must take place in a manner consistent with therequirements of law which provide that to the maximum extent appropriatehandicapped children must b. **Mt with children who are nothandicapped, and that handicapped chi en should be placed in specialclasses, separate school( -g. or any otherother,ucational environment only whenthe nature or severity ',a handicap is that education in regular classeswith the use of supp tan/ aids and ive services cannot be achievedsatisfactorily.

2

S. Conf. Rep. No 94-455 at page 30: U.S. Code Cong. & Adm. News at 1483.Similarly, with respect to the provision allowing an SEA to SMe childrendirectly in "state or regional centers"

. . . conferees specifically point out that serving children in State or regionalcenters must be done consistent with provisions of existing law wrath requirethat to the maximum extent appropriate, handicapped children are educatedwith nonnendicePfied children, and special dawn, operate schooling, orother removal from the regular educational environment occurs only when thenature or severity of the handicap is such that education in regular classes withthe use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.

The Conference Report and the bill on final passage came before the House onNovember 18, 1975, 121 Cong. Rec. H11346 ff., and the Senate, 121 Cong.Rec. 120426 ff., on November 19, 1975, Congressmanprademm, Chairman ofthe House Sub-Committee on Select Education, noted that the bill "requiresthat the Commissioner of Education conduct directly or by grant or contractinvestigations and evalueions to assure effective implementation of the programincluding the collection of data on . . the number of children moved from aregular classroom environment". Congressman Gude sounded again the basicthN'nes, ending the enforced isolation of handicapped peopl,

Mr. Speaker, for years, handicapped citizens of this tour i have been kept inthe dark, deprived of a free, full public education.

There is no question that previous emphasis on I Autionalization were notonly dehumanizing, but neglected the basic precee,t that hest persons havethe same rights as other human beings. Most importantly, institutionalizationmore often than not effectively prevented any chances for a handicappedindividual to perform productive work or to engage in any other meaningfuloccupation to the fullest possible extent of his capabilities.

121 Cong. Rec. H11350. Invoking Lincr.ln. Cor.gressman Michel noted:

The courts in this country have been recognizing the inherent discriminationagainst handicapped in recent years, and so we now find ourselves inspositionwhere massive new sums of money are going to have to be spent, by someone.on special education. The Constitution, the courts are saying, requires it, forno one is going to wont an amendment making the handicapped officiallysecond-cass citizens. So it must be done.

121 Cong. Rec. H11351. Congressman Daniels, having just previously celebratedthe priority accorded "the most severely handicapped children within eachdisability classification", went on to celebrate the integration imperative andagain to articulate the reasons for it:

I am also pleased with the provision of the conference report that maims thathandicapped children will receive the educational benefits of this program in

208209

the company of cildtwi who are not himdscapped. Of course, practicellimitations will have I be set on this participation, but the provision stronglyunderscores my own persons' Conviction that handicapped children must bemade to feel that they are a useful and immolated comoftent of Americansociety. Further, I believe the opportunity to share learning experiences withhandicapped thildren,Will40 t010.0. the permsOM** 01Claternates Who arenot handicapped. Lessons of patience, understanding and the ability toprovide peer encouragement are just as Wettable as traditional educationallessons to the future citizens of this nation ... (emphasis added)

Mr. Speaker. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting andvoting for this legislation which will provide the right to a good education tothose childten, who. through tine or circumstance, have entered lite a little lassfortunately endowed than we would wish. 1 his legislation will provide theopportunity for those children to reach heir adUcettOrat putuntiat and todevelop their personal talents aria capabilities.

Mr. Speaker, education of our chtioren is tne beiN Investment this country canmake. And education of our children means ad ot our chodren. This legislationwill help provide the tools of ectuanion anti seit-sutficiancy to Outworn wnoneed and deserve our help, and t urge its Passage by trill House.'

121 Cong. Rec. H11353. Whereupon, tile bill was aoopted 404 to 7.

In the Senate, .Senator Williams. the principal autrior ot the bill, restated itsintegration imperative:

The provisions of existing taw are rename with respect to the establishment ofprocedures to insure that handicapped children are awaited with childrenwho are not hanoicapped,

121 Cong. Rec. 320432, and delineated the structures established forimplementation and enforcement:

The conference 'port . . estaoitsnes the &ere educational agency asresponsible for the provision of tree appropriate Pubric adulation to allhandicapped children in tne state; and

Creates an accountapiiity mecnanism tor State educational agencies and localeducational agencies by requiring a State plan and IOW applications in orderto receive Federal funds.

121 Cong. Rec. 320430. Behind the bill, Senator Williams said, lay constitutionalnotions of equality:

The Constitution provides that all people shall be treated equally, but weknow that, while all vounoterS nave an equal right to education. those wholive with handicaps have not been accorded this right. This measure fulfills thePromise of the Constitution that there, shalt be equality of education for all

people, and that hand' iaped children no longer will be left out.

It fell to Senator Stofforo to express the normalizing intentions of the Congressall children are to be included in schooling, and they are to-be included in an

evenhanded and integrating fashion:

This is the day that handicapped children and their parents can point to andsay that this Congress their Congress recognized as st matter of nationalPolicy. the equal protection under the law that they have always deserved.

In this Nation, in this society, a right to an education is not a greet deal to ask.That right should be guaranteed. For those *stint fled seven million unservcihandicapped children and their parents, it shout.. be an everyday fact, not alegal matter. It is a pattern that every normal child expects to wake up to fivedays a week. So should the handicapped child.

It is part of the rhythm of life in this country,an unconscious aeximption,that our children will be educated. So should it be for the handicapped childand his parents. It must not be, for them, a court battle.

Those children hiVil hopes and dreams end desires to achieve in some measure,just as do their normal peers. They should not have to go to court --as theyhive had to in 27 States to assure for themselves sometning that foreveryone else is part of the pattern, the rhythm, the assumptions of everydaylife

I think that today Congress makes a vary important statement. It makes anecessary statement of principle about how we intend our handicappedchildren to be treated in the educational process. Unfortmately we cannot bythat or any other statement, change the attitudes of those who wout.i equine_"handicap" with Inferior." Attitudes and prejudice' eruct be legislstedaway. They will only be changed by the good will of men. This statement thatwe make wilt help because it is designed to bring our eltiloreri together, thosewith and without handicaps to try to undo the prejudji3Oa in education.

3. The Social and EducationalFacts Found by the Congress

The legislative history of the three enactments shows an acute awareness by theCongress of the long history of separation and isolation segregation, in a word

imposed upon disabled people. The separation out of disabled children intoremote, self-contained institutions, and in the school systems, when a disabledchild was included at all, their separation into special centers or special classes,often into church basements, the oldest-building-in-the district, or other inferiorftcilities where few resources were accorded their education was the factualpattern central to the consciousness of the Congress and defined the evil theCongress meant to change.

At the time the Congress acted, and long since, '79% of all first admissions to

211 210

institutions were of persons under twenty . . .; institutionalized adults camemostly from the ranks of those admitted as children." Earl Butterfield, "SomeBasic Changes in Residential Facilities, chapter 1 in PCMR, Changing Patterns inResidential Services for the Mentally Retarded (Kugel & Shearer, Eds, Rev. Ed.1976). Indeed, the "right to education" cases had been brought exactly tosecure integrated, orwrimunity alternatives for disabled children and to alter thispattern. I. Goldberg & L. Lippman, The Right to Education: An Anatomy of thePennsylvania Case (Columbia Teachers College Press 1973). The long and stillcurrent history of the segregation of disabled people, its bases and its costs, istreated in D. J. Rothman, The Discovery of the Asylum (1971); W.Wolfensberger, The Origin and Nature of Our Institutional Models (1969); tenBroek & Matson, "The Disabled and the Law of Welfare', 64 Calif. L. Rev.810-16 (1966); Burgdorf & Burgdorf, "A History of Unequal Treatment: TheQualifications of Handicapped Persons as a 'Suspect Class' under the EqualProtection Clause", 15 Santa Clara Lawyer 855 (1955); Githool, "The Right toCommunity Services" in PCMR, The Mentally Retarded Citizen and the Law173-182 (Kindred et al. Eds. 1976). See also, PARC v. Commonwealth ofPennsylvania, 343 F. Supp. 279 (E. D. Pa. 1972).

To trade the institution for segregated facilities operated by school systems wasnot the Congressional intention. A component of the stereotype and prejudicewhich historically attends disabled people is, of course, the view that disabledpeople cannot learn or function productively. The responding, and piercing,legislative fact found by the Congress in the 1974 and 1975 Education Acts isthat "developments in the training of teachers and in diagnostic andinstructional procedures and methods have advanced to the point that, givenappropriate funding. State and local agencies can and will provide effectivespecial education to meet the needs of handicapped children." P.L. 91-230,Section 601; P.L. 94-142 Section 3b(7); 20 U.S.C.A. Section 1401 note"Congressional Findings". In short the Congress found the ail di,abled children,however severely disabled, can learn and can function in society.

The same Congress which was considering the Education Acts also enacted theVocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973. There the Congress in an historic reversalof more than fifty years' practice in vocational rehabilitation required thatpriority be given in vocational rehabilitation services to "those with the mostsevere handicaps". 29 U.S.C.A. Section 701(1) and (6). The legislative factbehind that enactment was not only that severely disabled people can learn butthat, given proper training, they can team productive vocational skills and"engage in gainful employment". Id. Further. the same Congress in Section 503of that Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 793 required government contractors to takeaffirmative action to employ disabled people, including the severely disabled.Thus, the Congress which enacted Section 504 and the Education Acts hadfirmly in its consciousness the counter-stereotype fact that severely disabledpeople. with proper schooling, can function in integrated and productive fashion

212

in society, and indeed predieated the integrated schema of the legislative actsupon just that finding.* For rigorous, professional statements of these capacitiesof severely handicapped people for productive work. See, e.g., H. Goldstein"Social and Occupational Adjustment" in Heber & Stevens, eds., MentalRetardation 214-58 (1964) (supplemented annually in Mental RetardationResearch Abstracts; M. W. Gold, "Research on the Vocational Habilitation ofthe Retarded", in Ellis (Ed.) International Review of Research in MentalRetardation, Vol. 6 (1973); Bellamy, Peterson and Close. "Habilitation of theSeverely Profoundly Retarded: Illustrations of Competence" Education andTraining of the Mentally Retarded, Vol. 10 (1975), pp. P4.186; T. G. Bellamy(Ed.) Habilitation of Severely and Profoundly Retarded Adults, Reports fromthe Specialized Training Program, Monograph No. 1, (1976)."

Thus by Section 504 and the Education Acts Congress intended to 'verse thesegregation to which disabled children and adults had historically been subjectedand, cognizant of the counter-stereotype possibilities of an integrated, more orless normal life for disabled people, the Congress intended to mandategovernmental behaviors consistent with and advancing integrated normallifestyles. The fabric of the legislative history, recited earlier, shows three

The White House Conference on Handicapped Ilidividua Is Act, PA.. 93-616,29 U.S.C.A. Section 701 N., enacted December 7, 1974 by the same Congressreiterates the finding P.1.93.516. Section 301(6) recites:

The Congress finds that . it is essential thatrecommendations be made to assure that all individualswith handicaps are able to live their lives independentlyand with dignity and that the complete integration of allindividuals with handicaps into normal community living,working and service mittens be held as the final objective.

See also Faction 301(4).

"The analogous. empirical literature showing from extensive cross-culturalstudies the capacity of severely and profoundly handicapped persons for integratedcommunity living and showing systematically that the quality of life in smatl-scale.integrated community settings is "strikingly" superior to the quality of life ininstitutions, whatever their size includes King, Raynes '& Tizard, Patterns ofResidential Caw Sociological Studios in Institutions for Handicapped Children(1971) (England): McCormack, Balla & Zigler, "Resident Care Practices inInstitutions for Retarded Persons: A Cross-Institutiolial, Cross-Cultural Study", 80Am. J, of Mental Deficiency 1.17 (1975) (United States and Scandinavia), andKushlick, "Wessex. England", chap. 19 .n PCMR, Changing Patterns in ResidentialServices for the Mentally Retarded, 297312 (Rev. Ed., Kugel & Shearer, ads., 1976).These studies disprove the stereotypical notion that severely disabled are fit andproper candidates for segregation in large institutions with the finding that small scalefacilities are especially important to the severely disabled for with them there is evena greater premium on individualized attention. E.g. McCormack at el. at 14-15.

213

Congressional judgments lay behind this integration imoerativel

1. Integration is important in the education of all handicapped children, becausewhatever the severity of their disability modelling is a crucial mechanism in theirlearning.

2. Given that the education of handicapped children is intended to be educationfor a lifetime lived in integrated fashion in the community, integrated educationis important so that handicapped and non-handicapped children may truly knoweach-other, as children and as adults.

3. Given the long history of prejudice and stereotypi, of consigning (from Platothrough the present) the disabled to inferior facilities and inferior services,integration, the education of handicapped children with non - handicappedchildren, is a necessary and felicitous and more or less self-executing insurancethat handicapped children will receive their equal due.*

In the preamble to the Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, asto its predecessor, the Congress expressly found:

more then half of the handicapped children in the United States do not receive

For example, the parents of non-handicapped children will not tolerate theeducation of their children in church basements (end indeed absent the stenotypethat hangs over handicapped children, no one in this day at West would evenconceive it was o.k.to educate children in church basements!. Thus, if handicappedchildren are educated with non-handicapped children, they will not be in t.hurchbasements. For example, the parents of non - handicapped children, unburdened bythe defeat imposed by stereotype, will not as a general matter tolerate greviouslypoor teaching, If handicapped and non-hendicapPed children are being educatedtogether, handicapped children will not be greviously poorly taught. if it be objectedto this last example that the teaching of handicapped children requires differentskills, the answer is. perhaps. but even so if thole different skills are not present, thenthe handicapped children not being well taught will "disrupt" the education of thenon-handicapped children. and the grevious poor teaching of the handicappedchildren will, as a general matter, be corrected on that count alone. As the SupremeCourt said in Ingraham v. Wright, 97 S.Q. 1401, 1412 11977) in another, but notunrelated, context: "The openness of the public school and its supervision by thecommunity afford significant safeguards against the kinds of abuses for which theEighth Amendment protects the prisoner."

That is to say, attention to the quality of general education by parents, teachers, andschool boards must necessarily advance the quality of teaching for handicappedchildren, when they are integrated with non-handicapped children, because thestandards, personnel, and programs for handicapped children although not the sameas those for non-handicapped children, are an integral part of the education that allchildren and their parents are exposed to and thereby affect the overall quality ofeducation in the same ye., for siliernple that school transportation, non academicservices, or other component parts affect the overall quality.

214

aporopriate educational awakes which would *noble then) so hove MIactuality of opportunity:

one million of the handicapped children are excluded entirely from the publicschool system and will not go through the educational process with theirpoem

because of the lack of Mecume services within the public school system.families are often forced to find services Dunk,* the Public school system,often at great distance from their residence and at their own expense;

it is in the national interest that the Federal Government assist State and localefforts to provide *morons to meet the educational needs of handicappedchildren in order to assure equal protection of the law.

And in preamble Congress articulated its purpose thusly:

it is the purpose of this Act to assure that all handicapped children haveavailable to them, ... a free appropriate public education which emphasizesspecial education arcl related services designed to moot their unique needs, toassure that the of handicapped children and their parents of guardiansare protected, to assist States and localities to provide for the education of ellhandicapped children, and to assess and assure the effectiveness of efforts toeducate handicapped children.

20 U.S.CA. Section 1401 N.

The integration imperative is thus crucial to all of the purposes of the Acts toachieving effective education for handicapped children, and to preparinhandicapped children, and non-handicapped children alike, fdr life in a worldwhich includes disabled people. It is not cons:stent with the Congress'intentions, with its findings of fact or with the judgments of the Congress dearin the words of the enactments and express from the legislative history, tomaintain segregated, handicapped-only special education centers or schooling insegregated, handicapped-only institutions. Just as learning facts so profoundlyinfluenced the Congress in its formulation of the statutes, their imperatives takeon dear and concrete meaning and must be implemented in light of learningfacts. Under the statutes any degree of segregation can be mi'intained only if it is»scenery to the appropriate education cis a child. There is no cognizable reasonunder the statutes that is, no learning reason and no disability reason forhandicapped-only centers, certainly not on the scale they now exist. If a childcan come to a school at all, even to a self-contained class in a handicapped-onlycenter, he can come to a self-contained class in a normal school. Any teachingtechnique that can be used in a self-contained class can be used in aself-contained class located in a regular school building. There are few if anylegitimate teaching strategies which require the complete isolation of a childfrom interaction with other children, and the few such strategies that there maybe apply to very few children and for very short periods of time. Such strategies

215 214

do not require massive segregated centers or massive inzlitutions. The"continuum" of school settings permissible under the statutes, thus includesregular class (and all its variations) and special classes (and all their variations)located in school buildings where non-handicapped children are also schooledand, for those few children whose disabillty precludes their moving for the shortperiod of time that will be true, instruction in the home (whether the familyhome or an institution "home").

Brown, Wilcox. Sontag, Vincent, Dodd and Grunewald, "Toward the Realizationof the Least Restrictive Educational Environments for Severely HandicappedStudents", Review, The American Association for the Education of theSeverely/Profoundly Handicapped, Vol. 2. No. 4. P. 195 (December 1977) statesthe learning reasons for schooling handicapped children with children who arenot handicapped. Not surprisingly they are the very reasons the legislativehistory shows moved the Congress to enact the integration imperative. Brown,Wilcox, Sontag, Vincent, Dodd and Grunewald say:

Long-term. heterogeneous interactions between severely handicapped andnonhandicapped students facilitate the development of the skills, attitudes,and values that will prepare both groups to be sharing, participating,contributing members of complex, postschool communities. Stated anotherway, separate education is not equal education.

Segregated service delivery models have at least the following disadva Itages;

1, Exposure to northanditepped student models is absent or minimal;2. Severely handicapped students tend to learn 'handicapped' skills, attitudes,

and values:3. Teachers tend to strive for the resolution of handicapping problems at the

expenie of developing functional communityoeferenced skills;4. Most comparisons between students are made in relation to degrees of

handicap rather than to the criteria of noehandicapPed performance;5. Lack of exposure to severely heridicapred students limits the probability

that the skills, attitude, end 1101UOS of nonhandicapped students willbecome more construct, A.toltraint, and appropriate.

Certainly, it is Possible that interaction may not take place even if severelyhandicapped students are in the physical prey nee of nonhandicappedstudents. However, unless severely handicapped and nonhandkiepped studentsoccupy the same physical space, interaction is impossible In the future,severely handicapped students, upon the completion of formal schooling, willlive in public, minimally segregated, heterogeneous communities, where theywill constantly interact with nonhandicapped citizens. Thus, the educationalexperience should be representative and help prepare both severelyhandicapped students and nonhandicapped students to function adaptively inintegrated communities.

D. Hambleton & S. Ziegler, The Study of the Integration of Trainable RetardedStudents Into A Regular Elementary School Setting 14 (Research Department,

4-* 216

Metropolitan Toronto School Board, 1974) write:

The most releasnt criterion for aniesting the models spotters to be an educatedPrediction about the eventual level of social integration the trainable mentallyretarded child may achieve in *dolt life, If one believe* the trainable mentallyretarded adult will inevitably be institutionalized, or et the beet be able tofunction only within a thoroughly protected home environment. mannaschoolit it facilities are likely to be favored.

The Congress had made its predictions and mandated a new, integrated shapeto the adult life of severely disabled people. And it has placed the schools undera concomitant integration imperative in the choice of settings for schoolingseverely disabled children.

4. The Judicial Decisions Which GeneratedSection 504 and P.1.94.142

The Congress frequently referenced the court decisions in PARC v.Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Mills v. D. C. Board of Education. Wyatt v.Stickney, New York State Association for Retarded Children v. Rockefeller(the Willowbrook case), and Diana and Larry P. and the managers of Section 504and the Education Acts were express that they intended to make the rules ofthose cases the positive law of the land. 117 Cong. Rec. 4597475 (1971); 120Cong. Rec. S8437-43, (1974); H. R. Rep. No. 332, 94th Cong.. 1stSas& pp. 34,10 (19751; S. Rep. No. 168. 94th Cong.. 1st Sess. pp. 6-7 (1975). Thus thesecases inform the meaning of the integration imperative.

In the PARC opinion. 343 F. Supp. 279. 293-97 (E.D. Pa. 1972) (three Judo"court) the Court had recited the long history of prejudice against disabledpeople. The Court noted explicitly, 343 F. Supp. at 297. that "Plaintiffs do notchallenge the separation of special classes for retarded children flow regularclasses or the proper assignment of children to spacial classes." Thecourt-approved consent agreement provided that:

It is the Commonwealth's obligation to place each mentally retarded child in itfree, public program of education and training appropriate to the child*:capacity, within the context of the general educational policy that, among thealternative programs of education and training required by donate to beavailable, placement in a regular public school class is preferable to placementin a Wei& public school clais and placement in a special public school clot isPreferable to placement in any other type of program of education andtraining.

The consent agreement had discouraged homebound instruction and Airroundedit with requirements intended to severely limit its use, providing:

217 2.1

that homebound instruction is the least preferable of the Pro Wyly ofeducation and training administered by the Department ef Education and smentally retailed child shell not be assigned to it unless it 3s the program moatappropriate tb the child's dimities:.

that an assignment to homebound instruction shall be reatalusted not lessthan every throe months. end notice of the e*katlon end an opportunity fora hearing thereon shall be accorded to the parent or guardien,as set out in theOrder of this Court dated June 18.1971. as amended.

Both PARC and Mills. 348 F. Supp. 866 (0.D.C. 1972). required Access toschooling and established prooadural due process intended, inter elle toencourage placement in the "preferred" or most normalized settings bpd todiscourage placement in the most stigmatizing settings.

In Wyatt v. Stidcney 344 F. Supp. 387 (M.D. Ala. 1972) affirmed 503 F2d1305 (5th Cir. 1974), speaking in substantive due process rather than equalprotection language and addressing services provided to mentally retarded peoplethen living et Partlow State School and Hospital, the Court applied thetraditional doctrine that when the state interfereswith a person's liberty it mustdo so in the least intrusive, least restrictive manner. Generally on this doctrine,see Chambers. "Alternatives to Civil Commitment of the Mentally HI: PracticalGuides and Constitutional imperatives", 70 Michigan L. Rev. 1107 (1972).Judge Frank Johnson declared that residents havea right to "the least restrictiveconditions necessary to achieve. . .habilitstion". "No person$ the Coult held,"shall be admitted to the institution unless a prior determination shall have beenmade that residence: in the institutions is the least restrictive habilitation settingfeasible for that person" and "no mentally retarded persons shall be admitted tothe institution if services and programs in the community can afford adequatehabilitation to such persons." 344 F. Supp. at 396.

In New York State Association for Retarded Children v. Rockefeller, 393 F.Supp. 715 (E.D. N.Y.1975), (the Willowbrookcase), the court ordered that lessrestrictive settings be made available, and in particular ordered the creation ofsufficient services in the community to reduce, within six years, Willowbrook'spopulation from 3.000 to 350.

The cases show that the least restrictivasetting requirement means that plainafdoss members must be placed in the least restrictive totting required andappropriate for the individual needs. not merely the least restrictive settingcurrently available. In Willowbrook, for example, whereJudge Orrin G. Judd haddirected that services be provided to Willowbrook residents in the leastrestrictive setting podible, the parties sought a clarification of what the ordermeant by "pinsible". The court held that "possible" meant possible from theperspective of the individual's needs, not from the perspective of the servicesystem. New York State Association for Retarded Childnm v. Carey.Memorandum and Order of March 10,1976.

218A

ift

t.

Siniilarly,nearly 20 state courts in Pennsylvania have denied petitions commitch#clren to institutions and have instead ordered state and (Aunty fficiels.tociliate alternative services in the community. E.g., Joyce`Z. 123 Pi urgh181 (1975). These cases and their implications are descrihed in 1, Gilhool &Laski. "Rules and Tactics in institutionalization Proceedings: Role of theCourts in Assuring Access to Services in the t;:ommt(nity." ducation andTraining of the Mentally Retarded, Vol 12, No. 2. p. 1771April 977).

Diana and Larry P. v. Riles 343 F. Supp. 1306 (ND. Cal197771. aff'd 502.F. 2d963 (9th Cir 1974). were addressed to the overrepresentatio 'of racial, nationalorigin and language minorities in EMR classes. While the ications of thosecases for mainstreaming mildly hanclicepped children are pr found, this paper isaddressed to the integration of the severely disabled and, h Diana and LarryP. wiii net be discussed here. One of the authors has, idered those casesand suggested (1) that in light of the EMR efficagy s dies the appropriateremedy for overrepresentation may be the abolition 6f R classes, rather thanthe abolition of intelligence tests and (2) that the efiect f such a remedy wouldlikely be to hasten the day when IEP's and other iisdi ualizing techniques arerequired for all children in general education.;See' Githool, "PARC, Lau,Rodriguez and Individualized Education", Cross Reference: A Journal of PublicPolicy and MultiCultural Education, Vol. 1, ho.I. p. 27 (.1. B. LippincottCompany 1978).

On the differing articulations of the integration:imperativeand the IRE doctrineand the similarities and differences in their scope, see R. A. Burt, "Beyond theRight to Habilitation", chapter 14 in PCMR. The Meltally Retarded Citizen andthe Law 417 (M. Kindred et al. Eds., 1976). That article analyzes PARC andWyatt .

5. The Judicial and Administrative interpretationof Section 504 and P. L. 94-142

a. The Cases

The most authoritative construction of Section 504 has come from the SeventhCircuit Court of Appeals in Lloyd v. Regional Transportation Authority, 548 F.2d 1277 (1977). The Court had before it the question whether Section 504required that all buses purchased with federal financial assistance by Chicago'sRegional Transportation Authority be fully accessible to the disabled (and alsowhethe the U.S. Department of Transportation was required thusly to enforceSection 504).-The defense raised by Chicago's RTA was, inter ails, that separate,special bus services for the disabled instead of universal access by the disabled togeneral-use buses satisfied Section 504. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appealsrejected that argument and held that Section 504 creates a private right of actionfor disabled individuals. imposes bffirrnativis duties upon city and regionalagencies and prohibits ttnnecesserily separate services.

219

218

I

(This dtioyd decision, the similar construction of Section 504 in UnitedHonda: pad Federation, 558 F. 2d 413, 416 (8th Cir. 1917) ant theproceedings in disabled in Arlon of Pennsylvenia, at al. v. Coleman, C.A. No.76.1973 Slip Opinion of Match 17,1978, eventuated in a decision by U.S.Secretary ...sf Transportation, Brock Adam, reQuiring effective September, 1979that 4111 buses purchased with federal financial assistpece must be low-floor,ramped Transbuses, fully accessible to disabled and eyierk people.) .

A West Virginian federal district court has applied Section 504's integrationimperative to education. In Hairston v. Drosick, 423 F. Supp. 480 (S.D. W.Va.1976) a spina bifida child who was offered hothabound instruction, a specialeducation class, or a regular class if her mother would come to the school two atthree times a day to attend to the child, sued, as did her parents, on behalf ofthemselves and all others similarly situated, for admission to the regular classwithout conditions. Their claim was based upon Section 504. The Court madeextensive I, tegration findings. The Court wrote:

There are a greet number of other spins bifida children throughout the State."of West Virginia who are attending public schools in the regular iiessrockrOtsituation, the great majority of which have more severe disabilities than theplaintiff child Irina Emit Hairston including children having body braces.shunts, Cunningham clips and ostorniet, and requiring the use of milkers andconfinement to wheelchairs. The needless exclusion of these children-iddother children who are able to function adequately from thtregular classroom tga,situation would be a greet disservice to these children... kinejor goal of theeducational process is the socialization process that takes place in the relislarclassroom, with the resulting capability to interact in a social way witlione'sPeers. it is therefor:, imperative that every child r an education with hisor her peers insofar as it is at all possible. This co fusion is further enforCedby the critical importance of education in this

It is an educational fact that the maximum benefits to a child are received byPlacement in as normal environment as possible. The expert testimonyestablished that placement of children in abnormal environments outside ofpeer situations imposes additional psychological and emotional handicapsupon children which, added to their existing handicaps. causes them greeterdifficulties in future life. A child has to learn to interact in asocial way withits peers and the denial of this opportunity during his minor years imposesadded lifetime burdens upon a handicapped individual. 423 F. Supp. at 183.

The federal statute proscribes discrimination against handicapped individualsin any Ifirpgrein receiving federal financial assistance. to deny to ahandicapped ohild access to a regular public school classroom in receipt offederal stnencial assistance without compelling educational justificationoonstitUttis; discrimination and a denial of the benefits of such program inviolation Yif, the statute. School officials must make every effort to includesuch children within the regular public classroom situation. even at greetexpense to the school system, 423 F. Supp. at 184.

Two other educatipn cases, though they do not speak directly to the integration

220"I

imperative, are germane. In Barnes v. Converse College, C.A. No. 77-1166(D.S.C. July 18, 1977), the court found that Section 504 required a privatecollege receiving federal financial assistance to provide an interpreter to a deafschool teacher who enrolled as a student in its summer session to earn additionalcollege credits. In Kruse v. Campbell, 431 F. Supp. 180, 185.86 (E.D. Va. 1977)(three judge court) struck down on constitutional ground a Virginia tuitionreimbursement statute which failed to cover the entire cost of r-ivate schoolingwhere the public schools failed to provide appropriate education. The courtdiscussed both P.L. 94-142 and Section 504, found thern to be complementarystatues. found the "time" provisions of P.L. 94-142 with respect to full fundingoverriden by the "present right of handicapped children" under Section 504 andfound that Section 504 "constitutes the establishment of a broad governmentalpolicy that programs receiving federal financial assistance shall be operatedwithout discrimination on the basis of handicap." Significantly, the UnitedStates Supreme Court, 98 S. Ct. 38 (1977) vacated the Kruse court'sconstitutional holding and sent the case back to the district court withinstructions to decide it on Section 504 grounds.

Finely, in the first case, applying Section 504 to the institutions Wyatt,Willowbrook and the other institutional cases had all been decided onconstitutional grounds since the statute had not been raised in those casesJudge Broderick in Haldeman, at al. v. Pennhurst State School and Hospital,E.D. Pa. C.A. No. 74-1345, (Slip Opinion of December 23,1977 and Orders andMemcrandum Opinion of March 17, 1978), held that "Section 504. . .imposesaffirmative obligations on state and local governmental officials and that underSection 504 unnecessarily separate. .services are discriminatory and unlawfulI."The Court ordered defendants to create and maintain "community livingarrangements and other community services of the necessary quality andquantity. . .in the least separate, most integrated, least restrictive communitysetting" to replace the institution entirely. The Court's order and its Section 504holding rested upon its finding that

the retarded at Pennhurst are rot receiving minimally adequate habilitationand that such minimally adequate habilitation cannot be provided atPennhurst because it does not provide an atmosphere conducive tonormalization.

In the June 10. 1977 Memorandum Decision and Order of Judge Bartels in theWillowbrook case, enjoining transfers from Willowbrook to the Bronx

'Judge Broderick, who hisd seen a member of the three-judge Court whichdecides, PARC v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 343 F. Supp. 279 (E.D. Pa. 1972).asked nearly all of the fourteen expert witnesses who testified in Pennhurst whetherthe residents of Pennhurst should be educated in integrated schools. All answered

221 2 0

Developmental Center, another segregated, handicapped.only institution, asimilar finding was made:

The noels of normalisation and development of the mentally retarded cannotbe met until every effort is made to physically and sodalty integrate the denmembers into the mainstream of the community. Their activities should beoriented to community activities end the services delivered to them should bein the same context as community services delivered to others....

lit iii ,n community placement where the only real improvement in thehandicapped and retarded can be expected. (Slip Opinion. pp.11.12).

The constitutional and factual themes which join in the statutory integrationimperative .re ably discuued in K. Karst The Supreme Ct. 1976 TermForward: "Equal Citizenship Under the 14th Amendment", 91 Harv. 1.. MN.(Nov. 1977).

b. Me Administrative interpretationThe construction of Section 504 by the Department of Health, Education andWelfare in its Regulation, 42 Fed. Rag. 22376;45 C.F.R. Part 84, also shows thatSection 504 prohibits unnecessarily separate services. According to the HEWregulation:

(Siection 504 was intended to forbid discrimination against all handicappedindivirilzais. section 504. . represents the first Federal civil rights lawprotecting the rights of handicapped parsons and reflects a nationalcommitment to end ditcrirnnetion on the basis of handicap. . it establishes amandate to end discrimination and to bring handicapped -Persons into 'hemainstream of American life. 42 Fed. Reg, .2211175*

*Secretary Califances statement when he signed the regulation was:

The Section 504 Regulation attacks the discrimination.the demeaning Practices and the injustices that haveafflicted the nation% handicapped citizens. It reflects therecognition of the Congress that molt handicappedpersons can lead proud end productive lives, despite theirdisabilities. It will usher in a new era of equality forhandicapped individuals in which unfair barriers toself-sufficiency and decent treatment will begin to failbefore the force of law .

In Section 504, the Congress enacted a charter of equalityto help end the shameful national neglect of handicappedindividuals and to translate many of their legitimate needsinto legal rights .

iE l nding discriminatory practices and providing equalaccess to programs may involve major burdens on somerecipients. Thetas burdens and costs, to be sure. provideno basis for exemption from Section 504 or thisregulation: Congress' rnendste to end discrimination isclear.

322

Leaving no room whatever for gainsaying, the regulation, at Subpart A,84.4 (b) 111 00, under the title Viscriminotion Prohibitor, flatly says:

A recipient, in' providing any Sid. benefit. or device.mee. atet

(iv) Provide different or separate aid, benefits, or *Neon to handicappedpersons upless such action is ammo, to provide gratified handicappedpersons with aid, benefits, or services that are as effective as thoseProvided to others. 42 Fed. Reg.. 22678.

In its analysis of thisraitction of the regulation. "which describes the basis andpurpose of [the] secaon", 42 Fe. Reg. 22677, HEW underscores the point:

In paragraph (iv), different or separate services are prohibited except whennecessary to provide equally effective benefits ....It must be emphasized that, al hough separate services must be required insome instances. the provision of unnitconorify separate or different services isditcrimiootory."

The addition to paragraph 1114.41(b)(2) of the phrase in the most integratedsetting appropriate to the persons needs. is intended to reinforce this generalconcept. 42 Fed. Peg., 221187.

In addition to requiring integrated services to the fullest extent consistent with ahandicapped individual's needs, Section 504, as the regulation construes it,requires affirmative steps to assure the integrated services are effective or"meaningful" services. The regulation at Paragraph 84.4(b)(1) says:

A recipient, in providing any aid, benefit, or service, may

Deny a qualified handicapped person the opportunity to participate in orbenefit from the aid. benefit. or service;

fill Afford a qualified handicapped person an opportunity to participate in orbenefit from the aid, benefit, or service that is not equal to that affordedothers;

tiii1Provide a qualified handicapped person with an aid, benefit or Ser Viae thatis not as effective as that provided to others:. .

NM Otherwise limit a qualified handicapped person in the enjoyment of anyright, privilege, advantage, or opportunity enjoyed by others receiving an aid,benefit, or service. 42 Ppd. Reg 22678.79.

These words parallel the similar regulations under Title VI which the UnitedSupreme Court invoked in LSO V. Nichols, 414 U.S. at 566, in holding thatSection 601 of the Civil Rights Act imposed a duty to take affirmative action toprovide "meaningful" education to Chinese.speaking children.

223 222

Indeed, Hers analysis of Paragraph 84 4(b)(1) finds the Lau standard implicitin Section 504:

In peregraph OA different or separate services eve prohibited eircept whennecessary to provide equally effective benefits.

In this context, the term "equally effective,"...is intended to encompass theconcept of equivolent, as opposed to identical, services and to acknowledgethe fact that, in order to meet the individual toads of handicapped Persons tothe seme extent that the corresponding needs of northendiesppedpersons aremet, adjustments to regular programs or the provision or different programsmay sometimes be necessary. For example, a welfare offk* that mu therasephone for communicating with its clients must provide alternative modesof communicating with its deaf clients. This itemised parallels the oneestablished under This VI of Civil Rights Act of 1984 with respect to theprovision of educational services to students whose primary language is notEnglish. See Lau'v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974)." 42 Fed. Reg..22887.

In addition, like Title VI, as construed in Lau, Section 504, as the regulationconstrues it, not only requires that a recipient change any policies or practiceswhich do not meet the requirements of Section 504, but requires also that arecipient take "appropriate remedial steps to eliminate the effects of anydiscrimination that resulted from adherence to these policies and practices."Paragraph 84.6(c)(1)(iii), 42 Fed. Reg.

The specific rules and mechanisms set out in the school-specific Regulationsunder P.L. 94442 and Section 504 reflect the same interpretation of thestatutes and find the same meaning in them, although, for the reasons indicatedbelbw, the Regulation-specified mechanisms are insufficient to securecompliance with the statutes it tewation Imperative. Their particular defect is intheir over-reliance (indeed, their nearly sole reliance) upon individualizingmechanisms, like parent conference, IEP's, and due process Wirings, for thairtgplementationd enforcement of the integration imperative.

CHAPTER II: IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENTMECHANISMS NECESSARY TO ACCOMPLISH

THE INTEGRATION IMPERATIVE

6. The Single, Simple and Central Measure of Compliance

Given the meaning of the integration imperative set out above the necessarymeasure of compliance with the integration imperative requires a ratherstraightforward 3 steps:

1. Project the prevalence of children whose disability does not allow them tomove from their home setting for schooling, or whose learning requires, for a

2ti

brief time-limited period and/or specific purposes, that they be schooled inisolated settings, with no interaction with other children. All others can, andtherefore need be. schooled in regular classes (and its variation) or in specialdosses-located in-schoots-where non-hareficapped children are schooled.

2. Determine the present configuration, in each LEA and in each State, among(a) regular classes, (b) special classes in schools where non-handicapped childrenare schooled, and (c) isolated, segregated settings.

3. Set goals and timetables to conform the configuration of placements found in2. to the criterion establishe±tin 1.

Thus, a single outcome measure of .,oulp:;ince is possible. As to Step 1,HEW/BEH should project the modal configuration of placements which wouldobtain if the common prevalence figures and professional standards are appliedto define how many children are to be educated in integrated settings and howmany children require isolated settings. In Halderman, et al. v. Pennhurst StateSchool and Hospital, for example, expert testimony showed that in thePhiladelphia metropolitan area tof 5,000,000 people, 40 severely/ profoundlyretarded/mutt ply-handicapped people would at any given time require that allservices be delivered in one place., Of the 185 severely / profoundlyretarded/multiply handicapped children of school age resident at Pennhurst, allbut approximately a dozen of them can and do travel outside Pennhurst forschooling, albeit to a segregated handicapped-only special education center.

Among the sources available for determining the prevalence of disablingconditions are the surveys noted in the Rand handicapped services study(Kakalik, at al., Services for Handicapped Youth: A Program Overview, R-1220HEW, May, 1973, pp. 128-129) and in the Urban Institute comprehensive serviceneeds study (Urban Institute Report of the Comprehensive Service Needs Study,HEW 100.74-0309, June. 1975, pp. 66-;

As to Step 2, the LEAs and the SEAs can enumerate the present configurationof placements among settings a), b) end c) in the annual application and theannual state plan, and should be required to do so by HEW/BEH.

As to Step 3, in any LEA or SEA which the configuration reported in theapplication or state plan does not conform to the modal configuration, the LEAand SEA can formulate goals and timetables for the phased achievement of themodal configuration over a time-certain, and should be required to do so byHEW/8E H. The application and plan submissions 'Should provide specific plans

= for the several dimensions of action necessary to achieve effective integration,including the preparation of space and the preparation of parents, teachers andchildren, handicapped and non-handicapped alike, perhaps on the model of thevery successful integration reported in Hambleton & ZiegleriThe Study of the

225 2

Integration of Trainable Retefded Students Into a Regular Elementary SchoolSetting. ;Research Department, The Metropolitan Toronto School Board, 1974.The goals, timetables and plans should be reviewed by HEW/BEH for adequacy.

These implementation and enforcement measures and mechanisms parallel thoseused the implementation and enforcement of racial integration imperatives ofTitle VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They also parallel the measures andmechanisms set up in HEWS guidelines for Implementation of Section 504 by- - - Other Departments, 43 Fed. Reg. 2132 (January 13, 1978), and the UnitedStates Department of Transportation's Proposed Regulations, 43 Fed. Reg.20516 (June It 1978) for bringing fixed rail and 'ubway transit systems intocompliance with Section 504. Those guidelines (See1185.57(b).10r example)andproposed regulations contemplate a definite time period (e.g., three or twelveyears) for high-cost alterations of the system and require a plan for compliancewithin that time.

Of course, there are additional and important criteria for effective compliancewith the integration mandate. Because of the importance and the potentialeffectiveness of a single outcome measure (and because of its absence from thecurrent implementation and enforcement scheme) the authors have chosen tofocus upon it. As to other criteria, the authors would adopt the analysis of theelements of effective integration set forth in Brown, Wilcox, Sontag. Vincent,Dodd & Grunewakl, "Toward the Realization of the Least RestrictiveEducational Environments for Severely Handicapped Students", Reviews

vol. 2. No. 4, p. 195 (December, 1977). Each of those elements(Id. at pp. 199-200) can be translated into concrete operational measures andaddressed in the LEA application and SEA state plan, the enforcementmechanisms which are given central place in P.L. 94-142..*

'In Toronto, "trainable" ranges to 1.0.20.

*One element of effective integration analysed by Brown. at al,. namely.theratio between handicapped and non-handicapped students. suggests a particularlysalient mechanism for securing compliance with the integration imperative. inPennsylvania. as in most states. state approval of school construction is requited as acondition of state financial participation in the costs of construction. PennsylvaniaDepartment of Education School Building 'Vendor* have for more than two decadesrequired that 5% of all the space in all new school buildings be available for specialeducation. This requirement has been honored chiefly in the breach. It is likely thatmost states have and have tong had similar school building standards. if so. theyprovide a basis for the recovery of integrating spats in regular school environmentsfor disabled children. If not. such "set asides" may be required under 5action 504and P.L. 94442, {it should be no surprise that the 2% of the school age populationof any given chronological age who are severely handicapped. Brown.. al. at p. 197.is less than the 5% set aside.)

.01 226

7. The Insufficiency of Individual ProcessMechanisms to Secure ComplianceWith the Intevation Imperative.

Present implementation and enforcement mechanisms rely heavily (indeed,almost exclusively) upon individual process mechanisms to secure compliancewith the integration imperative. HEWS P.L. 94-142 IRE Regulations incomment to 121 a. 552.42 Fed. Reg. 42497 (August 23, 1977), for example,recite: "The overriding rule in this section is that placement decisicns must bemade on an individual basis." That statement is indisputably true in one sense;but vitiatingly false if applied in another sense. Yes, the proper place for theeducation of each child must be determined individually. No, that does notmean that defining configuration of placements must await that individualizedprocess. Certain system-wide projections and plans can and must be made andenforced. Not to do so is to maintain the largely segregated configurations whichnow exist for the severely disabled (something the Congress did not intend), foras Brown, et al., at p. 201, write: "If a segregated facility is built or kept open,society undoubtedly will place students there."

Divining the practical uses to which individual process mechanismsconferences, I EP's, due process hearings may in fact be put is a delicatejudgment. It is, however, a judgment as to which we have significant data, from a

three year National Institute of Education study of the implementation of thePARC decree by Kuriloff. Dworkin, Buss, and Kirp as well as from more generalstudies. The studies show that individual process mechanisms can and often dofunction to assure a prop* placement among the alternatives available, but theydo not reliably or systematically function to generate alternatives not yetavailable. They are useful to individuals; they are not so useful to securestructural change. Therefore to place upon individual process mechanisms theburden of changing the configuration of placements to which children areassigned, when we know that overwhelmingly the placements for !severelydisabled children are in segregated settings, is to forfeit compliance with theintegration imperative.

The preliminary conclusions of the NM study are reported in Kirp, Buss &Kuriloff, "Legal Reform of Special Education: Empirical Studies and ProceduralProposals", 62 California L. Rev. 40 (1974); Kuriloff, Buss & Kirp, "LepelReform and Educational Change: The Pennsylvania-Case", Exceptional Children(September, 1974); and final conclusions are reported in B. Dworkin, "Ananalysis of Due Process Hearings in Pennsylvania" (Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of Pa.),and Final Report, Project on Student Classifications and the Law N.I.E.generally on the constraints on (and hence the ways and means of) suucturalchange in school systems. See Kirp, "Schools as Sorters: The Constitutional andPolicy Implications of Student Classification", 121 U.Pa. L. Rev. 705 (1973).

227

The View from the Panel

arr

227

INTRODUCTION

The 2-day panel meeting provided an opportunity to bring together a small butdiverse group of educators to react to both the study and the IRE positionpapers. The group included representatives from state and local educationagencies, private schools, university departments of special education, and theBureau of Education for the Hnadicapped. Following initial BiH presentationsby Dr. Linda Morrs and Dr. Mary Kennedy which set the general context for thestudy, authors presented summaries of their papers and responded to questionsand comments. During the afternoon, panel members discussed various issuesrelated to the study and/or specific papers. On the second day, small groupswere formed to continue discussion of issues and develop recommendations.Following the small group session, a general session was held to share results.The next sections provide an issue-by-issue summary of the panel discussion andrecommendations.

THE ISSUES

The Concept of Progress Towards Implementation

The placement of handicapped children in the least restrictive environmentappropriate was recognized by the panel as a right which is likely to be enduring.Participants discussed the need to move from understanding of the mandate orlaw and regulations to conceptualization of a model and implementation of themodel. Implementation, in turn, was viewed as a feat which went beyondcompliance and would not be achieved in a brief period of time. As stated byone panelist in reference to full acceptance of handicapped individuals in oursociety: "We are talking *boot a period of years at the end of which we reachthe goal of the IRE provision ..."

To one panelist, the LRE provision requires goals and timetables to achieveintegration with the timetables indicating a reasonable set of tactics for LEAs toreach objectives such as attitude change. To ensure movement towards the goalof integration of handicapped children, documentation of movement on anagreed continuum of processes was advocated. Another panelist expressed thetask as: ". . . trying to give the LEAs a format with enough flexibility so that ;heLEA can develop its own individualized plans for reaching this thing calledLRE." The proposed format was derived from the individualized educationprogram MP) structure. First the LEA would asst.:Able a team whose job itwould be to develop the LRE policy. The second step, akin to diagnosis orassessment, would be foe the LEA to determine its present status with respect toIRE implementation. This step might involve, for eX101)16, a count ofhandicapped children by their current placement setting or a listing of inserviceIRE needs met end unmet. The third step is to develop objectives for IRE

231

228

implementation and the standards for meeting those objectives. Next, is aprioritizing of objectives, and finally, an evaluation of the extent the objectiveshave been met.

Letter Versus the Spirit of the Law

While there was agreement with the concept of progress in implementation,there was little general agreement as to whether "progress" meant movementfrom implementation which meets the letter of the law to irnplememetion whichmeets the spirit or intent of the law. Three different points of view wereexpressed by panelists.

One view was that essentially there is one standard for implementation of theIRE provision. The standard is the letter of the law or compliance as presentlydefined by BEH in the regulations. One panelist expressed the opinion thatrather than implementation meeting the spirit of the law, there is "merely aspirit in which the letter of the law is implemented." An illustration wasprovided: "We're going to put deaf kids in school with normal kids. That is theletter of the I jw. The spirit is when you teach all the normal kids how to do signlanguage. .. We're all going to have to reach the same ends, (but) some will do itwith more grace than others." in other words, while the common objective iscompliance, there may be best practice examples of implementation which canbe identified and disseminated.

An opposing view was that there is a continuum of implementation which goesfrom the letter to the spirit of the law, and the continuum should be defined,although it was not clear who should do the defining. The view waswell-summarized by this panelist: "I think there is a continuum that there areparameters and we can deal with them. We need a system of alternatives thatbegins with the minimum and enables one to go beyond. We all can complywith minimal standards by reshuffling the deck a little bit . I think we oughtto get away from minimum standards for everybody." Recommendations ofthese panelists were for "procedural alternatives that will enable a poor schooldistrict with a limited amount of resources to accomplish something, as well asthe kinds of alternatives that will give ideas to the most 'well-to-do' systems"with respect to IRE implementation. While it is not within the role of 8EH todevelop such a continuum, BEH would, for example, support a descriptive studyof IRE implementation which might describe best-practice models used byschool districts with varying amounts and kinds of resources at their disposal.

The third point oil view was that although there may 'be s continuum ofimplementation from that which meets the letter of the law to that which meetsthe spirit or intent, most school syStems are nowhere close to dealing with amaximal implementation concept. One panelist expressed it this way '1 don't

232

think we're at all ready to deal with from here to there (minimal to maximalimplementation) I think we need to deal with from here to here. We're not nearcomplying with the letter of the law in most school districts. We don't evenreally know what compliance with the letter of the law means." Thus, this thirdgroup of panelists felt that, at least for now, the only critical needs are fordefinition of compliance and steps which would indicate movement towardsimplementation with the LAE doctrine. The implication was that states shoulddisseminate compliance standards to LEAs. Rather than assume compliance illthe absence of a complaint, such disseminaton would allow LEAs to take aproactive rather than reactive stance.

The Goal of the LRE Provision

As is evident from the preceeding discussion as well as a reading of the positionpapers, there was no clear agreement on the goal of the LRE provision. For somepanelists the goal was the full integration of handicappped children withnonhandicapped children. For others the goal was that every handicapped childwould be in the least restrictive educational environment appropriate for thatchild.

The implications become apparent when the question is asked, as was by one ofthe panelists, how are you going to know when you have achieved the goal? Atone level the goal is achieved if there are no complaints, but since panelists weredivided on the definition of the goal, each side could have a complaint about theother. Proponents of the integration imperative offered one response to thequestion bui only in relation to severely harftlicapped children: First there is aprojection of the prevalence of children whose disability does not allow them tomove from their home setting.for schooling, or whose learning requires for abrief period of time and/or specific purpose, that they be schooled in isolatedsettings. Second, each LEA determines the present configuration pf handicappedchildren in regular classes, self-contained classes in schools with nonhandicappedchildren in regular classes, self-contained classes in schools with nonhandicappedchildren, and special schools. The goal of LRE is achieved when theconfiguration of LEA placements conforms with the prevalence figures. Again,the rules are seen as most applicable to severely handicapped children.

Other panelists rejected this approach. even for severely handicapped children,and argued that there were valid reasons for placements in handicapped-onlycenters. In the end. no clear response other than the federal position was Offeredto the question of how will you know when you have reached the goal and eachhindicapped child is placed in the least restrictive environment appropriate forhim or her? Panelists reinforced the idea, however, that the LRE doctrine relatesto all handicapped children, not just those who are institutionalized, and thatthe task remains to come to some agreement on LRE implementation and ways

233 230

of achieving it which cut across the categories of handicapping children.

The implementing Regulations

The panel agreed that parts of the IRE regulations could be used as rationalesfor overly restrictive placements and for preserving a system's status quo. Muchdiscussion centered on the regulation sections dealing with potential harmfulefforts on the child and the quality of services needed. Fears, for example, that achild might be taunted and emotionally harmed by rejection from nonhandi-capjed peers could be used as a justification for a more restrictive placement ona cont inuum of placement alternatives. A more restrictive placement could alsobe selected on the argument that the quality of services offered by the specialeducation teacher is superior to that of the regular classroom teacher because ofdifferences in teacher training.

Several panelists viewed these potential problems as again indicating the need, atleast at the State or local level, for delineation of the steps or procedures whichwould indicate implementation of the IRE provision. One panelist pointed outthe need for LEAs to respond to questions such as What steps are you taking toreduce the harmful effects (e.g., psychological stress from peer taunting) thatmight accrue to handicapped children? What inservice training have. youprovided to parents? To teachers? Have you evaluated the effectiveness of theinservice training? Another panelist suggested evaluating existing models whichhave the objective of 'attitude change and inservice training packages in order toidentify those which have "a good track record" and disseminating thisinformation.

Self-study Guides

There was considerable discussion of the advantages and disadvantages ofself-study guides, their content and audience, a* well as possible developers ofguides. Alternatives were discussed such as guides which discuss IRE issues,guides which would define IRE Implementation and present checklists withwhich a district could determine if they are in compliance, and resource guideswhich would offer LEAs alternative strategies for dealing with commonproblems in IRE implementation. While there was consensus that LEAadministrators, particularly principals, were the audience for self-study guides, itwas pointed out that states vary in the IRE policies and procedures they haveestablished. Within a certain band of tolerance, each state gets to do things itsown way. Thus, there are difficulties in developing a guide which will meet theneeds of 88 states and trust territories. With respect to the development ofguides, some panelists felt that regular and special education professionals shouldbe involved. Other panelists recommended that the effort be liOnterdisciplinery

231 234

as possible.

..

THE RECOMMENDATIONS

All three of the panel subgroups recommended the development of guides ormodels which would offer selfitudy strategies to LEAs. The groups differed,however, in their description of the focus of the guides and their views of whoshould develop the guides. Group I basically recommended thedevelopment of aself study guide which would define compliance with the LRE provision andpresent alternative strategies for both reaching compliance and achieving qualityor best practice implementation of IRE. Group II proposed a self-improvementguide, not a technical compliance manual, which would guide movement towardquality and best practices. Group III recommended that BEH not develop aself-study guide, but instead, leave it to SEAs to develop their own guides. Stateswould then be advocates of ;he guides and the guides would be consistent withstate policies.

Group I

As viewed by this group, a self-study guide on the implementation "f the LREprovision would have four major sections. The first secy.n, which could betitled: 'What is IRE?" would present a complete definition bit Li k implemen-tation from a compliance perspective. The second section, basically a set ofcheck points or markers, could be itled: "How do you determine if you arethere?" One check point or marker, for example, might be: "(loft your systemhave almost no handicapped students in handicapped-only centers?" If theresponse is affirmative, the user would proceed to the next check point ormarker,. If the response is is negative, the user would turn to the appropriate partof section three: 'What do you do if you are not there?" This section wouldattempt to identify the type of problem 44., transportation, staff expertise.lack of building space, etc.) and present alternative strategies for remediation ofthe problem. Section three would also use anecdotes to illustrate hoW otherschool systems have dealt with similar problems. The fourth section of the guide

"What do you do once you're .sere ?" would again use anecdotes toillustrate best practice cases.

The group also felt that there were two levels which should cut across the foursections, the school district level and the individual case level. The rationale forthe distinction between levels as that the problems in Implementation arelikely to differ at the two levels. The group also suggested that? both levels theproblems of urban and rural districts should be separately ressed. Furtherbreakdowns. such as elementary and secondary education tinctions, wererecommended for consideration.

235

. 23"

in terms- of development, the group recommended that the guide be supportedby BEH, but that organizations such.as NEA, CEC and AFT be involved in itsdevelopment. Upon completion of thelettle, it was suggested that a sample ofSEAS and LEAs, some that are in compliance with the IRE provision of the lawand some that are out of compliance, critique the guide in terms of its utility.

Group II

Group !1's recommendation was for a self-improvement wide and not atechnical compliance manual. While the objective of the guide would be tofacilitate movement of LEAs towards quality implementation of the LREprovisic.n, the guide would Snot present implementation standards beyori'd thelaw and regulations. instead the guide would focus on best practice types ofprocesses which could be used to implement the provision. The guide wouldillustrate the "difference between minimum or 'bare bones' compliance andreally taking the..tislt and doing a model job with its implementation."

in specifical4 considering the format of the self-study guide, the groupcommended the guide be limited to the IRE provision, but that it becrossr.eferenced with similar guides on implementation of the individualizededucation program, prdtection in evaluation procedures, and due process

. provisions. The group further recommended that technical writers, using theconcepts in the LRE position papers, develop a single guide which would then bereviewed by a panel of SEA and LEA representatives. Following this initialreview, the guide would be field-tested at both the SEA and LEA levels andrevised into a final document.

in addressing the specific content of the guide, the group made the additionalsuggestion that the guide consist of five sections. The first section would definethe law and regulations in terms of the IRE provision and also specify IN uses_of thp rguide. The second section would concentrate on .planning for IREirnpleMntation, especially at the district level. The next section would containforms and checklists which could be used to help document the procedures andcriteria used in reaching or monitoring placement decisions. The fourth sectionwould provide for self-analysis of federal, state, and local LRE policies andprocedures. This section would identify areas of potential or actual conflict.Finally, a reference section would be included. The group recommended thatelementary and secondary education level distinctions be addressed, but did notsuggest any particular format.

Group HI

Group i t 1 reached the decision the BEH,should not develop self-study guides,

but instead should promote discussion of the position papers through variousorganizations, the regional resource centers, and SEA level workshops. It thenshould be left to the SEAS to determine whether or not they want to developself-study guides. and if so, determine how the guides should be developed. Thegroup felt that if SEAS decided to develop guides, school principals would be,theprimary audience. An additional suggestion was that the states.- use theirintermediate education units IIEUs) to provide evaluation and other technicalassistance to LEAs in conjunction with the guide.

While generally the group left the content of the guides to SEAs, the mod toaddress practical problems was expressed. Examples were given such as formingcollaborative relationships, physically moving handicapped children from segre-gated buildings into integrated buildings, and facilitating the social i tegration ofhandicapped children in classes with nonhandicapped children.

As an effort unrelated to self-study guides, the group recommended that BEHdisseminate a clear policy statement on LRE implementation. This statementwould include compliance standards, delineation of the rigor with which theywould be enforced, and explanatiaim of how the standards would relate to theissue of quality over time.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Commonalities among *..4 three subgroups can be identified as follows:

1. All groups agreed with the BEN position that Federal standards, other thancompliance criteria, are neniter desirable nor intended: At a maximum,panelists viewed the Federal role as disseminating th, compliance proceduresor supporting technical assistance efforts of other educational groups ororganizations, such as state education agencies.

2. All groups saw more immediate need for technical assistance manuals tharifor evaluation methodologies. Emphasis was placed OA the identification ofbest-practice procedures or models, particularly LRE implementation strate-gies that have been used successfully by LEAs in varying contexts.

3. MI groups recommended that BEH disseminate its compliance standards,although not necessarily as part of the above effort.

4. The groups recognized the many difficulties involved in developing materialswhich would meet the needs of 58 states and trust territories. Differentstrategies were recommended to re$olve the difficulties.

The BEH is already engaged in efforts which should meet some of the technicalassistance needs delineated by these panelists. One study, currently beingconducted. will describe strategies being used by local administrators toimplement the LRE provision with the objective of identifying best-practices. A

237 234

second study will describe IRE decision-making procedures and criteria in use atthe local level, again with the objective of best-practices identification. Inaddition to that, efforts, BEH has developed its compliance or ProgramAdministrative Review procedures. Finally, dissemination of these positionpapers should stimulate other thoughts on achieving implementation of the LREprovisioit Panelists found the papers helpful, and spoke of taking the position_papers home and sharing them immediately with others who they thought wouldbe interested. It is our hope that this monograph stimulates the thoughts ofothers as well.

338

LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENTCRITERIA STUDY PANEL PARTICIPANTS

,`)k:14

April 19 - 20, 1978

Dr. James O. Aff leckProfessor and Chairman.

Special EducationUniversity of Washington

Dr. Gregory F. AloisAssistant ProfessorDepartment of Special EduceUniversity of Arizona

Dr. Ralph Boh nAdministra Pupil ServicesLake W ington School District No. 414Kir . Washington

Dr. Nick CertoPrograms for the Severely HandicappedBureau of Education for the

Handicapped

Mrs. Wendy CUREAdministratorFlorida Department of Education`

Mr. Thomas GilhootPublic Interest Law Center of

PhiladelphiaPhiladelphia. Pennsylvania

Dr. Jay Gottlieb-Department of Special EducationNorthern Illinois University

Dr. Mary KennedyActing Branch ChiefState Program Studies Branch

Dr. Sheila LowenbreurtAssociate ProfessorSpecial EducationUniversity of Washington

Dr. Gary J. MakuchDirector.of Special EducationPennsylvania Department of

Education

Dr. Phillip H. Mann, DirectorSpecial Education Training andTechnical Assistance Center

University of Miami

Dr. Linda G. MorroState Program Studies BranchBureau of Education for theHandicapped

Dr. Henry MorrowAssociate DirectorTexas Learning Resource CenterAustin, Texas

Mrs. Kathryn "Peg" Morton, DirectOrMontgomery Association forRetarded Citizens

Bethesda, Maryland

Dr. Gary W. NixSuperintendentMystic Oral SchoolMystic, Connecticut

Dr. J. A. Camille VautourDirector of Pupil ServicesSouth Windsor Public SchoolsSouth Windsor. Connecticut

Dr. Jerry ViasakAid to States BranchBureau of Edulittion for theHandicapped

239 236